Trial reportBrazilian journal of otorhinolaryngology
Surgical outcomes between two endoscopic approaches for maxillary cysts.
Trial report in Brazilian journal of otorhinolaryngology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Retrospective Study of the Prevalence of Maxillary Sinus Cysts Incidentally Detected on MRI Among Non-Symptomatic Caucasian Population.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Article
- Extended middle meatal antrostomy via antidromic extended medial wall for the treatment of fungal maxillary sinusitis.BMC surgery · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare recurrence rates and symptomatic relief in symptomatic maxillary sinus Retention Cysts (RCs) between Middle Meatus Antrostomy (MMA) alone and Inferior Meatus Antrostomy (IMA) with basal mucosa electrocoagulation.
methodsPatients with symptomatic unilateral maxillary RCs were randomly allocated to MMA (n=54) and IMA combined with mucosa electrocoagulation (n=53) groups. Symptomatic relief, cyst recurrence, and closure of the antrostomy opening were compared at 12-months postoperatively.
resultsSymptomatic failure occurred in 13 (12.1%) patients, including 9 (16.7%) MMA and 4 (7.5%) IMA patients; this difference was not statistically significant (p=0.251). Postoperative cyst recurrence occurred in 16 (29.7%) and 1 (1.9%) patient in the MMA and IMA groups, respectively (p<0.0001). Closure of the opening occurred in 7 (13.0%) and 17 (32.1%) patients in the MMA and IMA groups, respectively (p=0.032). However, there were no significant pairwise correlations between closure of the opening and symptomatic failure or cyst recurrence.
conclusionIMA combined with basal mucosa electrocoagulation and MMA alone provided similar symptomatic relief for symptomatic maxillary RCs, but IMA had shorter operation times and lower postoperative recurrence rates of RCs. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 1b.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.