Association between Smoking and 30‐Day Outcomes in Otologic Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of current smoking status on 30-day postoperative adverse events in patients undergoing otologic surgery. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Database of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program from 2006 to 2016. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Adult patients undergoing middle ear and mastoid surgery were included. Preoperative smoking status was determined, and adverse events within 30 days of surgery were recorded. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize the study sample. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to identify the association between sociodemographic and clinical variables and postoperative adverse events. Population-attributable fractions were then calculated. RESULTS: A total of 10,684 patients who underwent otologic surgery were included, of whom 2036 (19.1%) were smokers. The most commonly performed surgery was tympanoplasty with and without ossicular chain reconstruction, followed by canal wall up tympanomastoidectomy. Adverse events occurred in 221 (2.1%) patients; the most common was superficial wound infections (n = 99, 0.9%). In smokers, the odds ratio for any adverse event was 1.97 (95% CI, 1.42-2.71). The odds ratios (95% CIs) for superficial wound infections, wound dehiscence, and 30-day readmission among smokers were 1.89 (1.32-2.86), 3.92 (1.26-11.60), and 1.84 (1.15-2.87), respectively. The population-attributable fraction for any adverse event in smokers was 15.5%. CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing otologic surgery, smokers are more likely than nonsmokers to have postoperative adverse events-in particular, wound infections, wound dehiscence, and readmission to hospital.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".