The Use of Chlorhexidine as a Skin Preparation on the Head and Neck: A Systematic Review of Ocular and Ototoxicity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chlorhexidine gluconate is one of the most effective surgical preparations, but it has known potential ocular and ototoxicity. OBJECTIVE: To review reported cases of ocular and ototoxicity caused by chlorhexidine and summarize the clinical situations in which chlorhexidine toxicity occurred. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of PubMed and the Web of Science. RESULTS: Fourteen cases reported sensorineural hearing loss from chlorhexidine instilled into the ear. Of the 38 cases of ocular toxicity, 8 cases were caused by direct instillation in the eye and 17 involved periocular surgical preparation. In the remaining cases, the area prepped was less defined. Seven cases involved preparation of the face, 1 for the scalp, 2 cases were drips from distant sites, and 3 cases did not specify the means of exposure. CONCLUSION: The vast majority of toxicity occurred in patients undergoing general anesthesia and was rarely seen in situations where surgery was performed by dermatologists. Ultimately, it should be up to the individual physician to decide whether chlorhexidine is the best choice for a particular outpatient procedure.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".