SynthesisEuropean 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 Surgery2026
Middle turbinate preservation versus resection during endoscopic sinus surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis 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, 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
purposeTo compare the efficacy and safety of middle turbinate resection (MTR) and preservation (MTP) during endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) in in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS).
methodsWe evaluated postoperative outcomes, including quality of life, postoperative safety, and postoperative complications. Both fixed- and random-effects meta-analyses, as well as sensitivity and subgroup analyses, were conducted.
resultsTwenty-five studies including 4,314 cases were analyzed. For quality-of-life outcomes, no significant differences were found between MTR and MTP in Sino-Nasal Outcome Test-22 (SNOT-22: MD = –4.20; 95% CI: –10.11 to 1.71; p = 0.16), olfactory improvement (SMD = 0.42; 95% CI: –0.09 to 0.93; p = 0.11), or Lund-Kennedy endoscopic score (LKES: MD = –0.53; 95% CI: –1.18 to 0.12; p = 0.11). For postoperative complications, MTR showed lower risks of adhesion (OR = 0.22; 95% CI: 0.15 to 0.34; p < 0.001), sinus ostium restenosis (OR = 0.34; 95% CI: 0.16 to 0.72; p = 0.005), and lateralization (OR = 0.17; 95% CI: 0.09 to 0.34; p < 0.001), but higher risk of bleeding (OR = 2.42; 95% CI: 1.28 to 4.59; p = 0.007).
conclusionMTR yields comparable quality-of-life outcomes to MTP while lowering adhesion, sinus ostium restenosis, and lateralization, but increases bleeding risk. Careful risk–benefit assessment is warranted to support informed surgical decision-making.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41466066What 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.