Office-based Rhinologic Surgery: A Modern Experience with Operative Techniques under Local Anesthetic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Office-based rhinologic procedures have become popularized in recent years with the advent of several minimally invasive techniques. There is a paucity of literature, however, that supports more robust in-clinic procedures, e.g., true endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS). There is a high volume of this work being done at our center, and the objective of this article was to review the safety and tolerability of in-clinic surgeries. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted. All the adult patients who underwent in-clinic sinonasal procedures and surgery with a minimum of 3 months of follow-up were included. Information regarding intra- and postoperative complications and revision procedures were recorded. For the ESS procedures, the indication, sinuses operated on, and type of revision were also collected. RESULTS: A total of 315 patients met the inclusion criteria. There were 166 turbinoplasties, 118 ESS, 35 septoplasties, 34 rhinoplasties, and 4 septorhinoplasties performed. For the ESS procedures, 74 (62.7%) were bilateral, and experience was had operating in all paranasal sinuses. All ESS work involved opening diseased ostia and was more than just polypectomies. The mean follow-up for the ESS cases was 13.4 months (range, 12-65 months). Complication rates and tolerability measures were comparable with those of other reported in-office sinonasal procedures performed with the patient under local anesthetic. CONCLUSION: Office-based rhinologic surgery was safe and well tolerated by the patients. The need for revision ESS in our series was low when considering the extent of surgery that was performed. An in-clinic procedure may avoid a general anesthetic in the operating room for appropriately selected patients.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".