Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38652299›Full record

ArticleEuropean archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery2024

Assessing the safety and tolerability of rhinologic surgery under local anesthetic: an 8-year retrospective analysis.

Andrew Kokavec, Sarah Zahabi, Taciano Rocha, Brian W Rotenberg, Leigh J Sowerby

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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 1 institution in 1 country.

Andrew KokavecDepartment of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, 1151 Richmond Street, London, ON, N6A 3K7, Canada. akokavec@uwo.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0009-1437-1236
Sarah ZahabiDepartment of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, 1151 Richmond Street, London, ON, N6A 3K7, Canada.
Taciano RochaDepartment of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, 1151 Richmond Street, London, ON, N6A 3K7, Canada.
Brian W Rotenberg *Department of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, 1151 Richmond Street, London, ON, N6A 3K7, Canada.
Leigh J Sowerby *Department of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, 1151 Richmond Street, London, ON, N6A 3K7, Canada.
Western University · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeOffice-based rhinologic procedures (OBRP) have become widely available in North America due to technological advances and appropriate patient selection. Nevertheless, the literature exploring the safety of these procedures remains limited. The objective of this study was to further evaluate the safety, tolerability and efficacy of these procedures with a more robust sample size to allow for capture of rare events.

methodsA retrospective chart review of all patients who underwent OBRP from May 2015 to March 2023. Information regarding patient demographics, the indication for surgery, wait time, tolerability, intra- and postoperative complications, need for revisions, and type of revision (if applicable) was recorded.

results1208 patients underwent OBRP during the study period. No patients were excluded. These included turbinoplasties (35%), endoscopic sinus surgeries (ESS) (26%), septoplasties (15%), nasal fracture reductions (7%), and a variety of other procedures. For ESS procedures, the anterior ethmoids and the maxillary sinuses were the most common sinuses treated. 1.1% of procedures were aborted prior to completion. The post-operative complication rate was 3.2%, with 2 major complications (significant bleeding and sepsis) encountered. The mean follow-up overall was 11 months and for ESS it was 15.8 months.

conclusionOffice-based rhinologic procedures are well tolerated and safe for the appropriate patient and associated with shorter wait-times as well as avoidance of general anesthesia. The complication rates are similar to or lower than previously reported rates for rhinologic surgeries done in the operating room. The low rates of revision surgery also demonstrate the efficacy of these procedures.

Indexed as

Anesthesia, LocalAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAmbulatory Surgical ProceduresEndoscopyFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNasal Surgical ProceduresPostoperative ComplicationsReoperationRetrospective StudiesYoung AdultChronic rhinosinusitisEndoscopic sinus surgeryFESSLocal anestheticQuality of life

Identifiers

PMID38652299
OpenAlexW4395044319

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.