ArticleInternational forum of allergy & rhinology2026
Assessing Surgical Extent in Endoscopic Sinus Surgery: A Scoping Review of Scoring Systems.
Article in International forum of allergy & rhinology, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEndoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) varies substantially in the extent of surgical dissection performed, even when described under the same procedural label. In chronic rhinosinusitis, this heterogeneity may influence postoperative outcomes, revision rates, and response to biologic therapies. This review aimed to identify and characterize available instruments for assessing surgical extent after ESS.
methodsScoping review following PRISMA-ScR guidelines with systematic search of PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science.
resultsTwenty-one studies describing 11 instruments were included: spanning computed tomography (CT)-based scores (Amsterdam Classification of Completeness of Endoscopic Sinus Surgery [ACCESS], Completion of Surgery Index [CoSI], Sinus Surgery Completeness Score [SSCS], and Residual Ethmoid Cell [REC] score), intraoperative classifications (Lamella-Ostium-Extent-Mucosa [LOEM], complete vs. targeted, and Japanese Rhinologic Society [JRS]), radiologic-surgical concordance metrics, and study-specific tools. A key conceptual distinction emerged between surgical extent (the procedure performed) and surgical completeness (the anatomical result achieved). CT-based instruments primarily assess completeness, whereas intraoperative classifications capture extent. Because similar procedures may yield different anatomical results, these dimensions are not interchangeable. Among CT-based instruments, CoSI demonstrated the most consistent outcome associations, with incomplete prior surgery predicting greater benefit from revision ESS. ACCESS showed preliminary utility in biologic response prediction. LOEM is the only intraoperative system with reported outcome associations, although evidence is limited to a single group. Overall, evidence across instruments remains limited and predominantly retrospective.
conclusionsCT-based and intraoperative instruments capture different dimensions of prior surgery and should be selected according to the clinical or research question. Notably, structured scoring consistently reveals that many patients meeting guideline criteria for prior surgery have varying anatomical dissection. Given the association between surgical extent, postoperative outcomes, and biologic therapy response, its standardized assessment warrants evaluation for integration into clinical decision making. However, prospective validation is urgently needed.
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.