Cystic Fibrosis Increases Long-Term Revision Rates of Endoscopic Sinus Surgery in Patients With Comorbid Chronic Rhinosinusitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Comorbid chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) of adulthood is increasing among patients with cystic fibrosis (CF) due to improved median survival. However, little is known about the natural history of endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) in this cohort. The objective of this study was to evaluate the revision rate of ESS and associated risk factors among adults with CRS and CF (CRSwCF). Methods: The Utah Population Database was queried for patients age >18 with CRS who underwent at least one ESS between 1996 and 2018. Demographic information and ESS history were collected and compared for CRSwCF versus CRS without CF (CRSsCF) using chi-square and t-tests. Risk factors for revision were analyzed using Cox proportional hazard models and logistic regression analysis. Results: A total of 34 050 patients (33 639 CRSsCF and 411 CRSwCF) were included in the final analysis. The mean duration of follow-up was 9.3 and 9.3 years, respectively ( P = .98). Adult patients with CF were significantly more likely to undergo revision ESS (18.7%) than those without CF (13.4%; P < .01). Logistic regression analysis indicated that a diagnosis of CF independently elevated the risk for revision ESS in the absence of nasal polyps (odds ratio [OR] 2.18, confidence interval [CI] 1.34-3.54), asthma (OR 1.36, CI 0.94-1.98), and allergies (OR 1.29, CI 0.90-1.73). Conclusion: In the era before highly effective modulator therapies, the mean revision rate of ESS among adults with CRSwCF was 18.7%, significantly greater than that of adults with CRSsCF. CF was an independent risk factor for revision ESS in the absence of nasal polyps, asthma, and allergies.
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".