Comparative Restenosis and Revision Rates of Draf IIB Versus Draf III Frontal Sinusotomy in Chronic Rhinosinusitis: A Meta-Analysis Stratified by Endotype.
Muhammad Sohaib Shahid, Naimal Naeem, Muhammad Danish Lone et al.
✦ AI-curated · Sources linked
In 30 seconds
This PRISMA-guided meta-analysis compared restenosis and revision after Draf IIb versus Draf III frontal sinusotomy in adults with chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS), including subgroup analyses by inflammatory endotype. Thirty-eight studies contributed data. Across procedures, pooled restenosis and revision proportions were each 9%. Restenosis was lower after Draf IIb than Draf III (0.8% vs. 12%), as were revision rates (2% vs. 10%). Type 2 CRS was associated with higher pooled restenosis and revision than non-Type 2 CRS.
Key findings
- Across procedures, pooled restenosis was 9% (95% CI: 5-14%) and pooled revision was 9% (95% CI: 5-13%).
- Restenosis was 0.8% after Draf IIb versus 12% after Draf III; revision was 2% versus 10%.
- Type 2 CRS had higher pooled restenosis (8% vs. 1%) and revision (12% vs. 3%) than non-Type 2 CRS.
Why it matters
The findings suggest that both procedure type and inflammatory endotype may be relevant when assessing the risk of adverse frontal sinus outcomes in CRS. The higher pooled rates in Type 2 disease highlight the potential value of considering endotype alongside surgical approach, while the comparative estimates can inform discussion of outcomes and uncertainty.
What to keep in mind
The evidence is pooled from studies rather than prospective, endotype-stratified comparisons; the authors call for such studies to refine procedural indications and adjunctive management.