Bismuth iodoform paraffin paste hypersensitivity reactions in mastoid cavities following isolation of mucosal lining: a series of 587 patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: (1) To assess hypersensitivity to bismuth iodoform paraffin paste impregnated ribbon gauze following its use in packing canal wall down mastoidectomy cavities; (2) to determine if isolation of the skin and mucosa from the pack, using thin Silastic sheeting and Cortisporin ointment, reduces hypersensitivity reactions, compared with a previous series; and (3) to review the literature and to determine if bismuth iodoform paraffin paste hypersensitivity precludes the consumption of seafood (due to its high iodine content). MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients undergoing canal wall down mastoidectomy with intra-operative bismuth iodoform paraffin paste packing between 1985 and 2009 were identified and reviewed. RESULTS: Of 587 patients identified, the overall bismuth iodoform paraffin paste reaction rate was 1 per cent. All reactions were in patients undergoing revision mastoidectomy procedures, giving a reaction rate for revision procedures of 2.4 per cent. CONCLUSION: Reactions are an uncommon event following post-operative mastoid cavity packing using bismuth iodoform paraffin paste. Reaction rates may be lowered by preparing the cavity with Silastic sheeting and Cortisporin ointment prior to packing, thus isolating the skin and mucosal surfaces. Development of such a reaction does not preclude the consumption of seafood.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".