Craniofacial Pain Locations and Outcomes After Endoscopic Sinus Surgery for Unilateral Sphenoid Sinusitis: A Multi‐Institutional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Unilateral sphenoid sinus opacification on computed tomography is caused by a variety of pathologies including inflammatory and infectious sinusitis, benign and malignant tumors, and encephaloceles. The purpose of this study was to report craniofacial pain locations and outcomes in inflammatory unilateral sphenoid sinusitis (USS) patients who underwent endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS). METHODS: A multi-institutional retrospective cohort study was conducted on all adult patients who had ESS for USS from 2015 to 2022. Patient demographics, presenting symptoms and nasal endoscopy findings, extent of surgical dissection, and craniofacial pain locations and outcomes were recorded. Exclusion criteria included age <18 years, non-inflammatory etiology, immunodeficiency, invasive fungal sinusitis, lack of follow-up, lack of preoperative pain location, and neoplasia. Descriptive statistics were calculated. RESULTS: Of 57 patients with USS, 44 (77.2%) reported craniofacial pain at one or more locations. Retrobulbar (n = 19, 43.2%) was the most common pain location followed by frontal (n = 17, 38.6%) and occipital (n = 10, 22.7%). Surgical intervention resulted in pain resolution in 33/44 patients (75%), with a mean follow-up of 83.7 (±97.8) days. There were no significant associations between presenting symptoms, imaging findings, endoscopy, surgical extent, or final pathology and the presence or resolution of facial pain (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: In USS patients, the most common craniofacial pain locations were retrobulbar, occipital, and frontal, with a minority being vertex. Based on short-term follow-up, ESS resolved the craniofacial pain in 75% of cases. There were no clinical variables that predicted the presence or resolution of craniofacial pain. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4 Laryngoscope, 135:1915-1919, 2025.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".