Endoscopic Sinus Surgery in Older Patients With Chronic Rhinosinusitis: Meta-Analysis of Surgical Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is a common condition that significantly impacts quality of life. While endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) has proven effective in the general adult population, its specific effectiveness in older patients remains understudied. Objective This meta-analysis assessed the therapeutic effect and safety of ESS in patients aged 55 years and older with CRS. Methods Five electronic databases were queried: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Therapeutic effectiveness of ESS was quantitatively assessed using random-effects meta-analysis, in which mean changes of pre- versus postoperative scores of the Sino-Nasal Outcome Test-22 (SNOT-22) were pooled. Meta-regression was conducted to predict the variability in SNOT-22 changes. Comparative meta-analyses evaluating surgical complications between older and younger adult patients were conducted. Results A total of 12 studies were synthesized. Both short- and long-term follow-up data demonstrated significant improvement by reference to baseline. Our analysis demonstrated statistically significant mean reduction in the SNOT-22 score by 21.4 points (95% confidence interval [CI], –26.9 to –15.9) at an average follow-up of approximately 9 months. This improvement exceeds the minimal clinically important difference for SNOT-22. The presence of nasal polyposis was a favorable prognostic indicator of SNOT-22 improvement (β = –0.21; P = .002). The rates of surgical adverse events among older patients were 4.2% for significant bleeding, 0.6% for orbital injury, and 0.2% for skull base injury. A significant difference between the two age groups was observed only in skull base injury (odds ratio = 2.98; 95% CI, 1.53–5.80; P < .001). Conclusion ESS offers clinically significant benefits for older individuals, particularly those with nasal polyposis. It is a safe treatment option for CRS in the older patients, with outcomes largely comparable to those in younger adults, though certain risks, such as skull base injury, may be slightly higher in older populations.
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 | 0.013 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.039 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".