Medical use of cocaine and perioperative morbidity following sinonasal surgery—A population study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Topical cocaine is favoured by many surgeons for sinonasal surgery due to its superior vasoconstrictive and anesthetic properties. However, historical reports suggesting cocaine is associated with an increased risk of cardiac events have led many surgeons to turn to alternative topical medications. The objective of this study was to determine whether cocaine use during sinonasal surgery is associated with an increased risk of perioperative cardiac events and death. METHODS: We conducted a population-based analysis of patients undergoing sinonasal surgery from 2009-2016 using linked administrative health care data sets in Ontario, Canada. We compared patients treated at institutions that primarily use topical cocaine (exposed group) to those treated at institutions that do not use cocaine (unexposed group). Our primary outcome was a composite of major cardiac events or all-cause mortality within 48 hours of surgery. Due to low event rates, the outcome was compared using a Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: Of 10,549 patients who were included in the study, 27.4% were treated at an institution that uses topical cocaine. The rate of the composite of perioperative major cardiac event or all-cause mortality within 48 hours of surgery in the exposed and unexposed groups was, ≤0.2% and 0 (p-value>0.05), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In this large real-world cohort of patients undergoing sinonasal surgery, there does not appear to be any significant increased risk of morbidity or mortality associated with cocaine use. These findings have important implications for surgeons performing this 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 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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".