MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2999089731 · doi:10.1097/iop.0000000000001565

Perioperative Prophylactic Antibiotics in 1,250 Orbital Surgeries

2020· article· en· W2999089731 on OpenAlex
Aaron Fay, Nambi Nallasamy, Richard C. Allen, Francesco P. Bernardini, Jurij R. Bilyk, Kimberly Cockerham, Antônio Augusto Velasco e Cruz, Martín H. Devoto, Peter J. Dolman, Jonathan J. Dutton, David R. Jordan, Robert C. Kersten, Yoon-Duck Kim, Mark J. Lucarelli, Alan A. McNab, Ilse Mombaerts, Maarten P. Mourits, Jeffrey A. Nerad, Julian D. Perry, Geoffrey E. Rose, Peerooz Saeed, Lay Leng Seah, Dinesh Selva, Jennifer A. Sivak-Callcott, Diego Strianese, David H. Verity

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueOphthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSinusitis and nasal conditions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaOttawa HospitalChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAntibioticsPerioperativeAntibiotic prophylaxisSurgeryAdverse effectProspective cohort studyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis is used for many clean-contaminated surgeries or clean surgeries with an implant, but its value for clean orbital surgery has not been determined. This study investigated infection risks and adverse effects related to antibiotics in patients undergoing orbital surgery. METHODS: A prospective, nonrandomized comparative case series of all patients undergoing orbital surgery with participating surgeons between October 1, 2013, and March 1, 2015. Types of surgery, antibiotic regimens, corticosteroid use, antibiotic side effects, and surgical site infections (SSIs) were entered into an electronic database and subsequently analyzed. Cases in which patients received postoperative oral antibiotics were analyzed separately. RESULTS: Of 1,250 consecutive orbital surgeries, 1,225 met inclusion criteria. A total of 1208 patients were included in the primary analysis: 603 received no antibiotic prophylaxis (group A), and 605 received a single dose of intravenous antibiotic (group B). Five patients (0.42%) developed an SSI, 3 in group A and 2 in group B. The difference in SSI rates was not statistically significant between the 2 groups (p = 0.66). Antibiotic prophylaxis, alloplastic implants, paranasal sinus entry, and corticosteroid use were not associated with differences in SSI rates. All SSIs resolved on a single course of oral antibiotics; an implant was removed in 1 case. There were no complications associated with a single dose of intravenous prophylaxis. However, 12% of 17 patients (group C) who received 1 week of oral postoperative prophylactic antibiotics developed antibiotic-related complications (diarrhea, renal injury), yielding a number needed to harm of 8.5. CONCLUSIONS: In this large series, antibiotic prophylaxis does not appear to have reduced the already low incidence of SSI following orbital surgery. Given the detriments of systemic antibiotics, the rarity of infections related to orbital surgery, and the efficacy of treating such infections should they occur, patients undergoing orbital surgery should be educated to the early symptoms of postoperative infection and followed closely, but do not routinely require perioperative antibiotics.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.706

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.218 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it