MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7117887543 · doi:10.54393/pjhs.v6i12.3557

Radiologic Evaluation of Paranasal Sinus Anatomical Variations: A Systematic Review of CT and CBCT Studies and Their Surgical Implications

2025· article· W7117887543 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sahar Fahim, Muhammad Umer Khan Khalil, Tahira Mehreen, Rahmat Ullah Jan, Mehak Shafiq, Amber Shami

Bibliographic record

VenuePakistan Journal of Health Sciences · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldMedicine
TopicSinusitis and nasal conditions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParanasal sinusesMaxillary sinusSinus (botany)OstiumComputed tomographySeptoplastyClinical significanceOtorhinolaryngology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Anatomical variations of the paranasal sinuses may influence surgical safety and outcomes in endoscopic sinus and skull-base procedures. This review compiles radiologic evidence to quantify variant prevalence and delineate surgical significance. Objectives: To evaluate computed tomography (CT) and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) studies for the prevalence, morphology, and clinical relevance of paranasal sinus anatomical variations, emphasizing their implications for endoscopic sinus and skull-base surgery. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases (January 2010–March 2025) was conducted following PRISMA 2020 guidelines. A total of 612 articles were screened, and 17 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Eligible studies included original human CT or CBCT analyses reporting prevalence or morphology of variants (Onodi, Haller, Keros, accessory maxillary ostium [AMO], and roof asymmetry) with relevant surgical commentary. Weighted means were derived from pooled prevalence data across comparable imaging modalities using frequency-based aggregation. Study quality was evaluated using QUADAS-2 and modified Newcastle–Ottawa scales. Results: Seventeen studies were included. Weighted mean prevalence values were Onodi 34%, Haller 45%, and AMO 42%, with deep Keros type III fossae present in 5–9%. Ranges reflect inter-study heterogeneity in imaging protocol and cohort size. Radiology-guided findings highlighted optic-nerve proximity in Onodi, cribriform vulnerability in Keros III, orbital risk with Haller cells, mucus recirculation with AMO, and corridor distortion from concha bullosa or ethmoid-roof asymmetry. Conclusions: Anatomical variants of surgical relevance are frequent and population-dependent. Structured radiologic reporting using CT or CBCT improves pre-operative planning, mitigates optic-nerve and skull-base risks, and enhances procedural safety.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.598
Threshold uncertainty score0.779

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.101
GPT teacher head0.467
Teacher spread0.366 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePakistan Journal of Health SciencesSame topicSinusitis and nasal conditionsFrench-language works237,207