ReviewThe Laryngoscope2025
An Account of Roman Surgical Treatments for Ozena: Historical Review.
Review in The Laryngoscope, 2025. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo analyze a first-century Roman account of surgery for ozena-a tetrad of nasal crusting, ulceration, bony involvement, and foul odor-with a focus on historical context, etymology, and surgical management. DATA SOURCES: This historical review draws from the authors' translation of De Medicina. Primary sources detailing Roman surgical instruments from the House of the Surgeon in Pompeii, as well as secondary sources of surgical techniques, were utilized. REVIEW
methodsAn in-depth review of Celsus' descriptions of surgical techniques for ozena was conducted using independent translation and exegetical analysis of primary sources. Archaeological findings were investigated to correlate surgical tools with the interventions described.
resultsProto-Indo-European and Classical interpretations of ozena revealed a unifying feature of malodor and a simultaneous relationship to nasal ulceration and suppurative lesions. Celsus detailed two procedures for ozena: closed cauterization using a heated probe and an open technique involving dissection, direct cauterization, and structural repair. These align with ancient Roman understanding of wound care and caustic applications. Three surgical instruments were identified for these procedures based on archaeological finds from the House of the Surgeon in Pompeii and other collections.
conclusionCelsus' ancient structural interventions for ozena demonstrate an advanced understanding of anatomy and a mastery of instrumentation. This study underscores the importance of the historical contextualization of ancient medical practices, providing a foundation for the treatments of nasal pathology still in use today. LEVELS OF EVIDENCE: Not applicable.
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.