Complete versus Limited Endoscopic Sinus Surgery for Chronic Rhinosinusitis in Adults with Cystic Fibrosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To examine the effects of the extent of endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) on pulmonary health, including the pulmonary exacerbations and lung function in patients with cystic fibrosis (CF). Study Design Retrospective cohort study. Setting Tertiary health care center. Subjects and Methods A retrospective review of patients with CF who underwent ESS at St. Michael’s Hospital between 1999 and 2016 was performed. Two groups of patients were identified based on the surgical extent: (1) complete (maxillary antrostomy, complete ethmoidectomy, sphenoidotomy, and frontal sinusotomy) and (2) limited (any ESS that involved less than complete). Primary outcomes included the number of pulmonary exacerbations (the use of oral or intravenous [IV] antibiotics), number of hospital admissions and hospital days during a 2‐year pre‐ and postoperative period, and pulmonary function outcomes during a 1‐year pre‐ and postoperative period. Results There were 70 procedures (30 complete and 40 limited) among 57 patients. Baseline characteristics were similar between the groups. Complete ESS group had a significant reduction in the oral antibiotic use compared to the limited ESS group (median, –1.0 [interquartile range (IQR), –2 to 0] in complete vs 0 [IQR, –1 to 1] in limited, P =. 028). There was no difference in the use of IV antibiotics, number and duration of admissions, or rate of lung function change between the 2 groups. Conclusion Complete ESS may reduce mild forms of pulmonary exacerbations as shown in the decreased use of oral antibiotics. Overall, ESS does not significantly modify pulmonary outcomes in patients with CF.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".