Clinical Effects of Middle Turbinate Resection after Endoscopic Sinus Surgery: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The middle turbinate (MT) is a structure that is often carefully preserved during endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) in an effort to preserve nasal physiology and serve as an anatomic landmark. However, resection is performed in select cases because of involvement of the MT in the inflammatory process, obstruction, or instability. Therefore, significant controversy exists among surgeons regarding the indications for proceeding with MT resection in ESS. This study evaluates clinical outcomes of MT resection after ESS. METHODS: An English language search of the PubMed and Ovid databases was conducted for publications examining clinical outcomes of MT resection after ESS performed for chronic rhinosinusitis. Two authors independently examined the articles to identify those meeting inclusion criteria. Any differences over which studies to include were resolved by discussion and consensus. Bias assessment was conducted using the Cochrane Collaboration bias tool for randomized controlled trials and the Newcastle-Ottawa bias tool for cohort and case-control studies. RESULTS: After initial screening, search results revealed 71 articles that warranted detailed evaluation. After applying inclusion criteria, 9 studies were selected. A total of 2123 patients were included among the studies. All studies were controlled. Within the limited available data, olfaction scores may be improved in the MT resection patients compared with MT preservation patients. No difference between the groups was noted for quality of life outcomes, nasal airway resistance, or rates of postoperative frontal sinusitis. In regard to postoperative endoscopic examinations, some studies note greater improvement in the MT resection group compared with the MT preservation group, while others were equivalent. CONCLUSION: Although some studies show outcome benefit in MT resection patients compared with MT preservation patients, several others show no difference. When MT resection was appropriately indicated, no studies showed detrimental effects compared with MT preservation in their designated outcomes. Additional more stringent studies are warranted.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".