ArticleThe Laryngoscope2026
Long-Term Cost Utility Analysis of Endoscopic Sinus Surgery: Analysis of 5-Year Outcomes.
Article in The Laryngoscope, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Long-Term Cost Utility Analysis of Endoscopic Sinus Surgery: Analysis of 5-Year Outcomes.The Laryngoscope · 2026Article
- Chronic rhinosinusitis with and without nasal polyps: the state-of-the-art of current treatment strategies and future developments.Frontiers in allergy · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveBoth endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) and medical management have shown effectiveness for treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS); however, the majority of such analyses have relied on short-term surgical outcomes. We aimed to evaluate the long-term (5-year) cost-effectiveness of ESS versus medical management for patients with CRS.
methodsA cohort-style Markov decision-tree economic model with a 33-year time horizon was developed. A cohort of 96 CRS patients who underwent ESS were compared with a 2 to 1 matched cohort of 48 CRS patients who were treated with medical management at the same academic medical center. Long-term utility scores were calculated from the EuroQol 5-Dimension (EQ-5D) survey at 5-year follow up for the surgical cohort and 1-2 year follow up for the medical management cohort. Decision-tree analysis and a 10-state Markov model utilized published event probabilities and primary data to calculate long-term costs and utility. The primary outcome measure was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), which represents incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY).
resultsThe ESS strategy cost more ($63,296.10) but yielded increased QALYs (22.61). In comparison, the medical management strategy cost $26,990.27 but yielded only 13.48 QALYs. The ICER for ESS versus medical therapy alone was $4367.68 per QALY.
conclusionThis study shows ESS to be a cost-effective intervention compared to medical therapy alone for the management of patients with CRS based on analysis evaluating long-term (5-year) surgical outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: N/A.
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.