Antibiotic prophylaxis for total joint replacement surgery: results of a survey of Canadian orthopedic surgeons.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The role of perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis in total joint replacement (TJR) surgery is well established. Whereas guidelines have been published in some countries, in Canada controversy persists concerning the best clinical practice for perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis in TJR. METHODS: We conducted a survey of 590 practising orthopedic surgeons performing TJR in Canada to assess current antibiotic prophylaxis practice. The survey included questions pertaining to antibiotic prophylaxis indications, antibiotic choice, dosing, route and timing of administration in the primary and revision arthroplasty setting, as well as postoperative wound drainage evaluation and management. RESULTS: The response rate after 2 mail-outs was 410 of 590 (69.5%). Current antibiotic prophylaxis regimens varied widely among surgeons, underscoring the controversy that exists regarding what constitutes best clinical practice. CONCLUSION: Opinions regarding use of perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis in TJR vary widely among orthopedic surgeons in Canada, illustrating the controversy as to what constitutes best clinical practice. This survey also points to a lack of consensus about the current management of postoperative wound drainage.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".