Comparing the efficacy of Silastic and gloved-Merocel middle meatal spacers for functional endoscopic sinus surgery: a randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Spacers are inserted into the middle meatal space (MMS) following functional endoscopic sinus surgery (FESS) to prevent lateralization of the middle turbinate, scarring, and synechiae. Our objective was to determine if the incidence of postoperative synechiae, facial pain/discomfort, pain during spacer removal, scarring, and discharge differed between nasal cavities receiving Silastic or gloved-Merocel (GM) spacers following FESS. METHODS: A double-blind, randomized controlled trial (RCT) was conducted in adults requiring bilateral FESS for chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) ± nasal polyposis. Participants served as their own controls, with each subject receiving both a Silastic and GM spacer. Spacers were inserted into the MMS during FESS and left in situ for 6 days. Participants were reviewed at 6 days, 5 weeks, and 12 weeks postoperatively. The presence of synechiae and scarring were evaluated endoscopically. Inflammation, discharge, and pain during spacer removal were assessed using a visual analogue scale (VAS). RESULTS: Forty-eight participants (96 nasal cavities) were recruited. Preoperatively, Lund-Mackay computed tomography (CT) scores were similar between Silastic-treated and GM-treated cavities (6.38 ± 2.35 vs 6.18 ± 2.17). The incidence of synechiae and scarring did not differ significantly between spacers up to 12 weeks postoperatively. Pain during spacer removal was significantly greater for Silastic than GM spacers (2.13 ± 1.34 vs 1.51 ± 1.23, p = 0.020). Facial pain prior to removal and extent of discharge did not differ significantly between spacers. CONCLUSION: Following FESS, patients report less pain during removal of GM than Silastic spacers. However, the likelihood of synechiae and scarring did not differ between either of the spacers.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".