Nasal Packing After Septoplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: Bilateral anterior nasal packing is used after septoplasty with the goals of decreasing the risk of postoperative bleeding and adhesions. However, multiple studies caution against the use of nasal packing because of the risk of cardiopulmonary complications. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cardiopulmonary risks associated with bilateral anterior nasal packing after septoplasty. EVIDENCE REVIEW: A literature review was conducted by 2 independent reviewers using EMBASE, Ovid, Medline, PubMed, Google Scholar, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and reference list review from January 1966 to September 2012 to identify studies assessing nasal packing after septoplasty. The studies were reviewed and assigned an Oxford level of evidence grade, Detsky score, and Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies (MINORS) score. Data were extracted for arterial blood gases, oxygen desaturations, oxygen saturations, and adverse outcomes. Pooled estimates for randomized studies were performed when possible. FINDINGS: Fourteen studies conducted between 1973 and 2011 were included: 2 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) with a total of 119 patients and 12 prospective observational studies with a total of 356 patients. Nine studies showed a significant change within 1 of the cardiopulmonary parameters investigated. However, there was no consistency in changes across both observational and randomized studies. Furthermore, pooled estimates for cardiopulmonary parameters were all nonsignificant: standard mean differences of the pooled results of the RCTs were 0.05 (95% CI, -0.31 to 0.41) for arterial pH, 0.08 (95% CI, -0.30 to 0.46) for Paco2, and -0.32 (95% CI, -1.28 to 0.63) for Pao2. There were no major cardiopulmonary complications after nasal packing. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Bilateral anterior nasal packing does not seem to cause adverse cardiopulmonary changes after septoplasty.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".