This is good for a giggle.
This is the same gang that prevously threw out all the studies using
Zithromax and Clindiamycian and Euthromycian on chronic sinusitis.
They considered three studies using Amoxicillian, and when little
benifit was shown concluded NOT  that Amoxicillian was not an
approperate antibiotic for chronic sinusitis but that
Antibotics were useless in chronic sinusitis. Their conclusion was far
more sweeping than the evidence they considered.  Irresponsibily so.

So below they show that surgery is no better than "medical treatment".

IN light of their previous studies I would really like to know what
'medical treatment" they refer to.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Functional endoscopic sinus surgery for chronic rhinosinusitis.Khalil
HS, Nunez DA.
Derriford Hospital, Department of Otolaryngology, Derriford Road,
Plymouth, UK PL6 8DH. khalil@entplymouth.com

BACKGROUND: Rhinosinusitis is a well-recognised clinical syndrome
affecting patients of all ages and gender. FESS has now become a well-
established strategy, comprising several techniques, for the treatment
of chronic rhinosinusitis refractory to medical treatment. OBJECTIVES:
The aim of this review was to assess the effectiveness of functional
endoscopic sinus surgery as a treatment for patients with chronic
rhinosinusitis. SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane Ear, Nose and Throat
Disorders Group Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of
Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (1966 to January 2006) and EMBASE
(1974 to January 2006) were searched. Reference lists were
handsearched and experts in the field contacted to identify further
studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials. Inclusion
criteria were any of the following criteria singly or in combination:
patients with chronic rhinosinusitis diagnosed by a health
professional; patients with sinusitis symptoms for more than 12 weeks;
endoscopic evidence of sinusitis or radiological evidence of
sinusitis. Exclusion criteria were immune suppression; cystic
fibrosis; Wegener's disease; previous sinus surgery or sinonasal
malignancy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: All studies meeting the
inclusion criteria underwent validity assessment and the data were
extracted independently by the two authors.Comparisons were:FESS
versus medical treatmentFESS versus conventional sinus surgeryFESS +
medical treatment versus medical treatmentFESS + medical treatment
versus conventional sinus surgery + medical treatment MAIN RESULTS:
The three included studies were randomised controlled trials.The
evidence available does not demonstrate that FESS, as practiced in the
included trials, is superior to medical treatment with or without
sinus irrigation in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis. A middle
meatal antrostomy fashioned by FESS was also not shown to be superior
to an inferior meatal antrostomy formed by traditional sinus surgery
techniques, although the small sample size in the study does not
exclude a type II error.In one study there was a relapse rate of 2.4%
in the FESS and sinus irrigation group compared to 5.6% in the sinus
irrigation only group. The relapse rates were not mentioned in the
other studies.There were no major complications such as orbital injury
or cerebrospinal fluid leak reported in any of the included trials.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: FESS as currently practiced is a safe surgical
procedure. The limited evidence available suggests that FESS as
practiced in the included trials does not confer additional benefit to
that obtained by medical treatment (+/- sinus irrigation) in chronic
rhinosinusitis. More randomised controlled trials comparing FESS with
medical and other treatments, with long-term follow up, are required.