Asthma increases long‐term revision rates of endoscopic sinus surgery in chronic rhinosinusitis with and without nasal polyposis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chronic rhinosinusitis with asthma (CRS-A) has a significant impact on patient morbidity and quality of life. Nevertheless, little is known about the natural history of endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) in this cohort. The objective of this study was to evaluate revision rates of ESS in CRS-A and identify risk factors associated with increased likelihood for revision surgery compared to those with CRS without asthma (CRS-alone). METHODS: The Utah Population Database was queried for patients age >18 years with CRS who underwent at least 1 ESS between 1996 and 2018. Demographic information and history of ESS were collected and compared between CRS-A and CRS-alone using chi-square tests for categorical variables and t tests for continuous variables. Risk factors for revision surgery were analyzed using Cox proportional hazard models. RESULTS: A total of 33,090 patients (7693 CRS-A and 25,397 CRS-alone) were included in the final analysis. Mean follow up was 9.8 years in CRS-A and 9.1 years in CRS-alone (p < 0.001). The revision rate among patients with CRS-A (21.5%) was twice that of CRS-alone (10.8%) (p < 0.001). Among patients with CRS, a history of allergy (p < 0.001), asthma (p < 0.001), and nasal polyposis (p < 0.001) was independently associated with increased risk of revision ESS. Patients with CRS-A and nasal polyposis were 6 times more likely to require revision surgery than those with CRS-alone (p < 0.010). CONCLUSION: The rate of revision ESS in CRS-A was twice that of CRS-alone; patients with CRS-A and nasal polyposis were 6 times more likely to require revision than those with CRS-alone. ©2021 ARSAAOA, LLC.
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) | 0.001 | 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".