P.057 A systematic review of the prophylactic antibiotic use in endoscopic endonasal transsphenoidal surgery for pituitary lesions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The benefit of prophylactic antibiotic use in endoscopic endonasal transsphenoidal surgery (EETS) for pituitary lesions is controversial. Many surgeons administer antibiotics perioperatively not based on clear guidelines but “to be safe”. Methods: A systematic review using PRISMA guidelines was performed to assess the efficacy of perioperative antibiotic use to prevent infectious complications in patients undergoing EETS. Inclusion criteria: randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, observational studies, and case series. Data extracted: study design, year of publication, sample size, surgery type, perioperative antibacterial treatment (antibiotic, dose, and duration), number of patients with 30-days post-operative meningitis and/or sinusitis. End points: rates of meningitis and sinusitis post-EETS. Results: A total of 280 articles were identified. Four observational studies met inclusion criteria. Based on GRADE score these studies were considered low in quality. 633 patients were -included in those studies. The most common antibiotics used were cefazolin and ceftazidime. The rate of infection ranged from 0.5% to 3.1 % for meningitis as the most common infection. Conclusions: The need to use antibiotic(s) perioperatively is not clear in patients with pituitary lesions undergoing EETS. Randomized control trials are needed to evaluate the efficacy of prophylactic antibiotic use in patients with pituitary lesions undergoing EETS.
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 | 0.010 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".