Assessing Surgical Extent in Endoscopic Sinus Surgery: A Scoping Review of Scoring Systems.

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic 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.

METHODS

Scoping review following PRISMA-ScR guidelines with systematic search of PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science.

RESULTS

Twenty-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.

CONCLUSIONS

CT-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.