ArticleAmerican journal of rhinology & allergy2026
Comparison of Long-Term Revision Rates and Health Care Utilization Between Standalone Balloon Sinus Dilation and Endoscopic Sinus Surgery in Chronic Rhinosinusitis Patients Without Nasal Polyps: Is the Balloon Value Proposition Overinflated?
Article in American journal of rhinology & allergy, 2026. 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
Abstract
BackgroundPrevious research has reported inconsistent results when evaluating long-term revision rates of patients undergoing balloon sinus dilation (BSD) compared to primary endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS).ObjectiveWe aimed to compare outcomes and long-term rates of revision surgery in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis without nasal polyps (CRSsP) who underwent primary standalone BSD versus primary ESS. We also wanted to better understand the post-procedure utilization of major healthcare resources between these groups.MethodsRetrospective cohort study using the TriNetX platform to identify patients with CRSsP undergoing standalone BSD versus primary ESS. 1:1 propensity score matching was performed to balance age and gender in each cohort. The primary outcome was revision ESS rates at 1 and 10 years. Secondary outcomes were rates of healthcare utilization and complications, including orbital, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leak, and epistaxis within 90 days.ResultsAfter matching, each cohort had 2112 patients. At 1 year, the revision ESS rate was 3.5% in the balloon cohort and 3.5% in the ESS cohort (OR = 0.97, 95% CI: 0.70-1.35). Extending follow-up to 10 years, revision rates were also not statistically different: 5.8% in the balloon cohort and 6.3% in the ESS cohort (OR = 0.92, 95% CI: 0.72-1.19). Patients in the balloon cohort had a lower 90-day risk of inpatient encounters (OR = 0.29, 95% CI: 0.23-0.38), CRS-related patient visits (OR = 0.63, 95% CI: 0.55-0.71), diagnostic nasal endoscopies (OR = 0.57, 95% CI: 0.50-0.65), antibiotic prescriptions (OR = 0.53, 95% CI: 0.43-0.66), and corticosteroid prescriptions (OR = 0.62, 95% CI: 0.53-0.71).ConclusionNo significant difference was observed in revision ESS rates in CRSsP patients who underwent primary BSD versus ESS after 10 years in this large database study. Findings suggest that in appropriately selected patients, BSD offers a durable response and a favorable value proposition in the management of patients with CRSsP.
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.