Chlorhexidine ototoxicity in ear surgery part II: survey of preparation solution used by otolaryngologists in Canada: is there a cause for concern?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To conduct a survey of the antiseptic preparations used for ear surgeries among otolaryngologists in Canada. METHODS: An electronic survey was sent to active members of the Canadian Society of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery via e-mail. Questions included the use of antiseptic, choice of preparation solution, duration of preparation, use of a barrier method, and compliance with hospital protocol changes. RESULTS: The e-mail was received by 253 otolaryngologists, and 85 completed the survey. Four of 85 respondents did not perform tympanoplasty surgery and were not included in the analysis. Of those who performed tympanoplasty (n = 81), 78 of the 81 respondents (96%) used an antiseptic preparation solution at surgery, whereas 3 respondents (4%) did not. Sixty-six of the 77 respondents (86%) used aqueous povidone-iodine, 4 (5%) used a chlorhexidine-based preparation, 3 (4%) used an alcohol-based solution, 3 (4%) used others, and 1 answered "I don't know." Thirty-eight of 75 (29%) respondents used a barrier method, 23 (31%) answered "always," 18 (24%) answered "sometimes," and 5 (7%) answered "I don't know." When asked if they would comply with a hypothetical hospital policy to use chlorhexidine in ear surgery, 15 of 79 (19%) respondents agreed, whereas 64 (81%) disagreed. Among the aqueous povidone-iodine users (n = 66), 7 (11%) agreed to change to chlorhexidine. CONCLUSIONS: There is a wide variation in practice in the use of surgical preparation solution among otolaryngologists performing ear surgery. Surgeons must be vigilant to avoid ototoxicity. A national society consensus on appropriate preparation solutions for ear surgery would minimize patients' risk and minimize future medicolegal actions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".