MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2591849401 · doi:10.1055/s-0037-1600596

Sino-Nasal Quality of Life before and after Endoscopic Transsphenoidal Skull Base Surgery

2017· article· en· W2591849401 on OpenAlexaff
Vincent Wu, Michael D. Cusimano

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurological Surgery Part B Skull Base · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHead and Neck Surgical Oncology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSkullSurgerySinus (botany)ResectionTranssphenoidal surgeryGold standard (test)Nasal cavityRadiologyPituitary adenomaAdenoma

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Endoscopic transsphenoidal surgery (ETSS) is now considered the gold standard approach for resection of pituitary adenomas and other midline anterior skull base lesions. Our standard surgical technique, done since 1993, often involves the partial resection of the middle turbinates bilaterally, a wide posterior septectomy along with a wide sphenoid opening to allow for adequate bi-nostril instrumentation. For extended ETSS, additional sinus cavities are opened where the entire skull base and orbit are skeletonized. Concern has been raised over the last few years whether the resection of these normal sinonasal structures results in significant nasal morbidity in the post-operative period. Objective: The purpose of this study was to examine whether our standard ETSS technique as well as the extended ETSS approach affected patient specific sinonasal quality of life (QoL) as measured by the validated 22-question Sino-Nasal Outcome Test (SNOT-22). Methods: Single-center retrospective chart review with prospective collection of SNOT-22 questionnaires in patients who underwent ETSS by the same skull base team between January 1st 2012 to June 30th 2016. Patients were identified if they had any completed SNOT-22. Only patients who completed both pre-operative and post-operative SNOT-22 in their entirety were included for data analysis. Primary outcome was SNOT-22 scores at all follow-up points (preoperative, 0–1 month, 2–4 months, >5 months). Age, sex, tumor pathology, and surgical procedure (including extent of ETSS and intraoperative CSF leak repair) were also extracted. Results: 249 ETSS were performed during the study period. Of these, 148 (59%) patients had at least one completed SNOT-22 score, with 45 (30%) meeting the inclusion criteria. The mean age was 54 ± 15 years. Twenty-seven (27) patients (60%) were male and 11 (24%) underwent an extended ETSS – with additional skull-base resection. There were 20 patients (44%) who had an intraoperative CSF leak with repair and 11 patients (24%) previously had nasal surgery. Twenty-six (26) patients (58%) had pituitary adenomas. Across all patients, SNOT-22 at the 0- to 1-month follow-up was significantly higher than baseline ( p < 0.05), but decreased to baseline levels at 2 to 4 months ( p > 0.05), and remained at that level at >5 months ( p > 0.05). The findings were similar for sinonasal specific outcomes and olfactory function. Moreover, the extent of ETSS surgery, having previous nasal surgery, repairing an intraoperative CSF leak, and the tumor pathology, all did not affect SNOT-22 scores at all follow-up intervals ( p > 0.05). Conclusion: In our series, sinonasal QoL as measured by the SNOT-22 worsened immediately after ETSS at the 0- to 1-month follow-up. However, the total SNOT-22 score, sinonasal specific items, and olfaction all returned to baseline levels at 2 to 4 months and remained sustained at >5 months. These data will allow us to educate our patients that the anticipated nasal morbidity following ETSS is usually only transient and should be expected to recover to pre-operative levels.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.076
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.246 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neurological Surgery Part B Skull BaseSame topicHead and Neck Surgical OncologyFrench-language works237,207