RESUMO
Abstract Introduction Patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) and positive sinonasal bacterial cultures may be recalcitrant to topical therapy alone due to the additional local inflammatory burden associated with bacterial infection/colonization. Objectives To evaluate sinonasal outcomes in CRSwNP patients with a positive perioperative bacterial culture, who were treated with postoperative intranasal corticosteroids (INCS) alone versus INCS in combination with a short-term course of oral corticosteroids (OCS). Methods This is a retrospective chart review of CRSwNP patients. A total of 59 patients met inclusion criteria, including positive perioperative bacterial culture and treatment with INCS with or without concomitant use of OCS. Two cohorts were formed based on the chosen postoperative medical treatment; 32 patients underwent postoperative INCS alone, while 27 underwent INCS plus a ≤ 2-week course of OCS. The 22-item sinonasal outcome test (SNOT-22) scores and Lund-Kennedy scores (LKS) were assessed preoperatively, and at 2-week, 4-week, and 4 to 6 months after endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS). Results There were no statistically significant differences in postoperative sinonasal symptoms or endoscopic scores between the cohorts treated with INCS plus OCS versus those prescribed INCS alone (p > 0.05). Our regression model failed to demonstrate a relationship between the use of OCS and better sinonasal outcomes at 2-week, 4-week, and 4 to 6 months after ESS (p > 0.05). Conclusions Our study suggests that in a cohort of CRSwNP patients with recent bacterial infections, the postoperative use of combined OCS and INCS did not result in a statistical improvement of endoscopic and symptomatic outcomes over INCS irrigation alone. However, both treatment groups had a clinically significant improvement based on the Minimal Clinically Important Difference.
RESUMO
Introduction Patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) and positive sinonasal bacterial cultures may be recalcitrant to topical therapy alone due to the additional local inflammatory burden associated with bacterial infection/colonization. Objective To evaluate sinonasal outcomes in CRSwNP patients with a positive perioperative bacterial culture, who were treated with postoperative intranasal corticosteroids (INCS) alone versus INCS in combination with a short-term course of oral corticosteroids (OCS). Methods This is a retrospective chart review of CRSwNP patients. A total of 59 patients met inclusion criteria, including positive perioperative bacterial culture and treatment with INCS with or without concomitant use of OCS. Two cohorts were formed based on the chosen postoperative medical treatment; 32 patients underwent postoperative INCS alone, while 27 underwent INCS plus a ≤ 2-week course of OCS. The 22-item sinonasal outcome test (SNOT-22) scores and Lund-Kennedy scores (LKS) were assessed preoperatively, and at 2-week, 4-week, and 4 to 6 months after endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS). Results There were no statistically significant differences in postoperative sinonasal symptoms or endoscopic scores between the cohorts treated with INCS plus OCS versus those prescribed INCS alone ( p > 0.05). Our regression model failed to demonstrate a relationship between the use of OCS and better sinonasal outcomes at 2-week, 4-week, and 4 to 6 months after ESS ( p > 0.05). Conclusion Our study suggests that in a cohort of CRSwNP patients with recent bacterial infections, the postoperative use of combined OCS and INCS did not result in a statistical improvement of endoscopic and symptomatic outcomes over INCS irrigation alone. However, both treatment groups had a clinically significant improvement based on the Minimal Clinically Important Difference.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The complex nature and heterogeneity involving pituitary surgery results have increased interest in machine learning (ML) applications for prediction of outcomes over the last decade. This study aims to systematically review the characteristics of ML models involving pituitary surgery outcome prediction and assess their reporting quality. METHODS: We searched the PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Knowledge databases for publications on the use of ML to predict pituitary surgery outcomes. We used the Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) to assess report quality. Our search strategy was based on the terms "artificial intelligence", "machine learning", and "pituitary". RESULTS: 20 studies were included in this review. The principal models reported in each article were post-surgical endocrine outcomes (n = 10), tumor management (n = 3), and intra- and postoperative complications (n = 7). Overall, the included studies adhered to a median of 65% (IQR = 60-72%) of TRIPOD criteria, ranging from 43% to 83%. The median reported AUC was 0.84 (IQR = 0.80-0.91). The most popular algorithms were support vector machine (n = 5) and random forest (n = 5). Only two studies reported external validation and adherence to any reporting guideline. Calibration methods were not reported in 15 studies. No model achieved the phase of actual clinical applicability. CONCLUSION: Applications of ML in the prediction of pituitary outcomes are still nascent, as evidenced by the lack of any model validated for clinical practice. Although studies have demonstrated promising results, greater transparency in model development and reporting is needed to enable their use in clinical practice. Further adherence to reporting guidelines can help increase AI's real-world utility and improve clinical practice.