The Effects of Nasal Surgery on Pulmonary Function: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: A deviated nasal septum (DNS) can result in an anatomical obstruction and impact lung function through prolonged suboptimal inspiration. Given the improvements in respiration reported by patients following septoplasty or septorhinoplasty (with or without inferior turbinate reduction), our study investigated the effect of these procedures on pulmonary function through a systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, Cochrane Databases, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. REVIEW METHODS: The review was registered with PROSPERO [CRD42022316309]. The study population was composed of adult patients (18-65) who were symptomatic with confirmed DNS. Extracted outcomes (pre-operative versus postoperative) included the six-minute walk test (6MWT) and pulmonary function tests (FEV1, FVC, FEV1/FVC, FEF25-75, PEF). Meta-analyses were performed using a random-effects model. RESULTS: Three studies included measures of the 6MWT in meters and all three found a statistically significant increase in the distance walked after surgery with a mean difference of 62.40 m (95% CI 24.79-100.00). Statistically significant improvements in PFT outcomes were observed with a standard mean difference of 0.72 for FEV1 (95% CI 0.31-1.13), 0.63 for FVC (95% CI 0.26-1.00), and 0.64 for PEF (95% CI 0.47-0.82). Of the twelve studies which measured PFT outcomes, six showed statistically significant improvements, three studies showed mixed results, and three studies found no difference in PFT outcomes between pre-and post-surgery testing. CONCLUSIONS: The present study suggests that pulmonary function does improve after nasal surgery for DNS, but the high heterogeneity observed in the meta-analyses indicates that the evidence supporting this conclusion is low. Laryngoscope, 133:2837-2845, 2023.
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 | 0.010 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.033 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".