Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41480650›Full record

Trial reportClinical otolaryngology : official journal of ENT-UK ; official journal of Netherlands Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology & Cervico-Facial Surgery2026

Comparison of Piezoelectric and High-Speed Drills for Frontal Beak Osteotomy in Endoscopic Sinus Surgery-Exploratory Study.

Łukasz Skrzypiec, Kornel Szczygielski, Agnieszka Brociek-Piłczyńska, Dariusz Jurkiewicz, Marta Aleksandra Kwiatkowska

Abstract readRandomized Controlled TrialComparative Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in Clinical otolaryngology : official journal of ENT-UK ; official journal of Netherlands Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology & Cervico-Facial 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Łukasz SkrzypiecDepartment of Otolaryngology and Oncological Laryngology With Clinical Department of Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surgery, Military Institute of Medicine-National Research Institute, Warsaw, Poland.
Kornel SzczygielskiDepartment of Otolaryngology and Oncological Laryngology With Clinical Department of Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surgery, Military Institute of Medicine-National Research Institute, Warsaw, Poland.
Agnieszka Brociek-PiłczyńskaDepartment of Otolaryngology and Oncological Laryngology With Clinical Department of Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surgery, Military Institute of Medicine-National Research Institute, Warsaw, Poland.
Dariusz JurkiewiczDepartment of Otolaryngology and Oncological Laryngology With Clinical Department of Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surgery, Military Institute of Medicine-National Research Institute, Warsaw, Poland.
Marta Aleksandra KwiatkowskaDepartment of Otolaryngology and Oncological Laryngology With Clinical Department of Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surgery, Military Institute of Medicine-National Research Institute, Warsaw, Poland.ORCID 0000-0002-3683-9508

Funding

Wojskowy Instytut Medyczny 522
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionFrontal beak reduction is a critical and challenging step in endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) for chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS). Traditional high-speed drills can risk thermal injury and soft tissue trauma, whereas piezoelectric surgery uses ultrasonic vibrations for selective bone cutting and may improve surgical precision. This study compared piezoelectric devices with conventional drills for frontal beaks reduction.

methodsA double-blind exploratory study with randomisation was conducted during the years 2019-2022. Adult CRS patients (n = 43) with prominent nasofrontal beak undergoing ESS were randomised to piezoelectric knife (n = 22) or high-speed drill (n = 21). Exclusion criteria included prior sinus surgery, septoplasty, neoplasms or systemic contraindications. Outcomes included Lund-Kennedy, Lund-Mackay, Sino-Nasal Outcomes Test (SNOT-22), Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) scores and frontal sinus ostium dilatation, measured pre-operatively and at 1, 4 and 24 weeks post-operatively.

resultsBoth groups showed significant post-operative improvements in Lund-Mackay and SNOT-22 scores (p < 0.05). At 1 week, the piezo group had significantly lower Lund-Kennedy scores (p = 0.022), suggesting better mucosal healing. Correlations in the piezo group were observed between ostium dilatation and improved Lund-Mackay (R = -0.527; p = 0.008) and SNOT-22 (R = -0.405; p = 0.049) at 24 weeks. No significant differences were found in ostium width gain, VAS scores or complications. With piezo devices, the median time of surgery was increased.

conclusionPiezoelectric surgery is a safe, effective alternative to drills for frontal beak reduction in ESS, with potential benefits for early mucosal healing. Further studies are warranted to confirm long-term advantages.

Indexed as

EndoscopyFrontal SinusOsteotomyPiezosurgeryRhinitisSinusitisAdultChronic DiseaseDouble-Blind MethodFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedTreatment Outcomechronic rhinosinusitisendoscopic sinus surgeryfrontal beak reductionfrontal sinushigh‐speed drillmucosal healingpiezoelectric surgery

Identifiers

PMID41480650
PMCPMC13050808

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.