Is the ultrasonic scalpel recommended in head and neck surgery during the <scp>COVID</scp>‐19 pandemic? <scp>State‐of‐the‐</scp>art review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Guidelines for ultrasonic devices use are imperative because infectious aerosols arising from airway procedures were a key etiologic factor in prior coronavirus outbreaks. This manuscript aims to summarize the available recommendations and the most relevant concepts about the use of ultrasonic scalpel during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. METHODS: Literature review of manuscripts with patients, animal models, or in vitro studies where the ultrasonic scalpel was used and the plume produced was analyzed in a quantitative and/ or qualitative way. DISCUSSION: Activated devices with tissue produce a biphasic bioaerosol composed (size 68.3-994 nm) of tissue particles, blood, intact and no viable cells, and carcinogenic or irritant hydrocarbons (benzene, ethylbenzene, styrene, toluene, heptene, and methylpropene). CONCLUSION: It is imperative to use an active smoke evacuator, to avoid ultrasonic scalpel use in COVID-19 positive patients and in upper airway surgery, as well as to follow the protection recommendations of the guidelines for management this type of patients.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".