ReviewHNO2024
[Local flap reconstruction techniques after frontal sinus drainage type II and III according to Draf].
Review in HNO, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundExtended endonasal endoscopic frontal sinus surgery is characterized by bone resection beyond the lamellae of the frontal sinus and is currently classified according to Draf as type IIa, type IIb, modified type III (also referred to as type IIc), and type III. This approach is indicated when the surgical goal cannot be achieved through complete removal of the anterior ethmoidal cells. Numerous studies indicate restenosis rates ranging from 7 to 36%, despite creation of maximal openings. Exposed bone, which tends to epithelize slowly with significant crusting and the risk of uncontrolled wound healing depending on the local environment and other factors, is considered a contributing factor. Covering the exposed bone with mucosa can significantly reduce the risk of restenosis. METHODS AND
resultsA variety of flap techniques for frontal sinus drainage in Draf III procedures are presented, including some variants that were part of presentations at the 2023 Congress of the European Rhinologic Society in Sofia, Bulgaria. These include combinations of free mucosal grafts, pedicled mucosal flaps, and hybrids combining both techniques. Additionally, the results of current studies are presented.
conclusionThe results and achieved opening areas in contemporary Draf III surgeries are significantly improved and larger compared to the early stages of these procedures. A multitude of published studies consistently demonstrate that outcomes are markedly improved with mucosal coverage. Depending on the prevailing anatomy, mucosal conditions, and the extent of the surgical intervention, the most suitable technique should be selected. Therefore, proficiency in various methods is crucial. The use of a flap technique (free, pedicled, or combinations thereof) should be defined as the standard when performing extended frontal sinus surgery (Draf IIb, IIc, III, or endonasal frontal sinus surgery [EFSS] 4-6).
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.