ArticleJournal of rhinology : official journal of the Korean Rhinologic Society2022
Assessing Feasibility and Safety of Using Ultrasonic Bone Aspirator for Revision Endoscopic Sinus Surgery.
Article in Journal of rhinology : official journal of the Korean Rhinologic Society, 2022. 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.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Objectives: This study introduced and evaluated the efficacy of an ultrasonic bony aspirator (UBA) in revision endoscopic sinus surgery and compared the outcomes to those of the traditional cold instrument approach. Methods: This retrospective study enrolled 57 patients who underwent revision endoscopic sinus surgery between June 2010 and December 2017, 17 patients with a UBA approach and 40 patients with traditional instruments. Results: Median Lund-Kennedy scores showed a statistically significant difference between the two groups at 3 months (p=0.004). Synechiae occurred in 17.6% and 35% of cases in the UBA and traditional groups, respectively. The mean operative time was significantly shorter in the traditional group (p=0.001). Conclusion: The use of a UBA in revision endoscopic sinus surgery was safe and effective.
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.