Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32650386›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2020

Quality of Life Outcomes in Frontal Sinus Surgery.

Christos Georgalas, Marios Detsis, Ioannis Geramas, Dimitris Terzakis, Andreas Liodakis

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Comparison of Piezoelectric and High-Speed Drills for Frontal Beak Osteotomy in Endoscopic Sinus Surgery-Exploratory Study.Clinical otolaryngology : official journal of ENT-UK ; official journal of Netherlands Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology & Cervico-Facial Surgery · 2026
    Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. International consensus statement on allergy and rhinology: Olfaction.International forum of allergy & rhinology · 2022
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Christos GeorgalasDepartment of Surgery-Head and Neck, Medical School, University of Nicosia, Nicosia 2408, Cyprus.ORCID 0000-0003-1158-020X
Marios DetsisFaculty of Mathematics, School of Medicine, European University Cyprus, Diogenis Str 6, Nicosia 2404, Cyprus.
Ioannis GeramasEndoscopic Sinus and Skull Base Surgery-Athens (ESA), Hygeia Hospital, Erythrou Stavrou 4, Maroussi, 15123 Athens, Greece.
Dimitris TerzakisEndoscopic Sinus and Skull Base Surgery-Athens (ESA), Hygeia Hospital, Erythrou Stavrou 4, Maroussi, 15123 Athens, Greece.
Andreas LiodakisEndoscopic Sinus and Skull Base Surgery-Athens (ESA), Hygeia Hospital, Erythrou Stavrou 4, Maroussi, 15123 Athens, Greece.
Hygeia Hospital · GREuropean University Cyprus · CYUniversity of Nicosia · CY

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionAlthough significant experience has been gained in the technical nuances of endoscopic sinus surgery procedures, the patient-reported outcomes of frontal endoscopic sinus surgery procedures are still poorly understood. In this study we used the validated patient outcome measure Sino Nasal Outcome Test-22 (SNOT-22) to assess the preoperative and postoperative quality of life in patients undergoing extended endoscopic frontal sinus surgery (Draf type 2 and Draf type 3 procedures).

methodsOut of a total of 680 patients undergoing endoscopic sinus and skull base surgery and 186 patients undergoing frontal sinus surgery, 99 chronic rhinosinusitis patients with (CRSwNP) or without (CRSnNP) nasal polyps undergoing Draf 2 or Draf 3 were assessed.

resultsThe mean preoperative SNOT-22 was 45.6 points for patients undergoing Draf 2 and 59 for patients undergoing Draf 3, while the mean radiological Lund-Mackay Score was 14.3 and 14.5, respectively. Mean SNOT 22 improvement was 22.9 points for Draf 2 and 37 points for Draf 3 respectively and remained significant in all time intervals, including at 4 years after surgery. With the exception of loss of smell/taste, all symptoms improved by a far bigger extent in Draf 3 group, despite the considerably worse starting point. Effect size (Cohen / Standard Deviations) of Draf 3 was greatest in the following symptoms: "being frustrated/restless/irritable" (1.63), "nasal blockage" (1.43), "reduced concentration" (1.35), "fatigue" (1.29) "runny nose" (1.26) and "need to blow nose" (1.17). Frontal sinus (neo) ostium was patent (fully or partly) at last follow up in 98% of Draf 2 patients and in 88% of patients following Draf 3. Patients with non-patent frontal (neo-) ostium however had a mean postoperative SNOT 22 score of 43 compared to 20 of those with patent frontal sinus (neo-) ostium, although the difference was not statistically significant.

conclusionPatients undergoing Draf 3 have a greater burden of disease, including both nasal and emotional/general symptoms compared to Draf 2 patients; surgery results in improvement in both groups, although Draf 3 patients have the greatest benefit, especially in emotional / general symptons. In this way both groups achieve similar postoperative quality of life, despite the different starting points.

Indexed as

chronic rhinosinusitisDraf 2 procedureDraf 3 procedurefrontal sinus surgerypatient outcomesSNOT-22 questionnaire

Identifiers

PMID32650386
PMCPMC7408842
OpenAlexW3041118808

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.