Pain Management Following Otological Surgery: A Prospective Study of Different Strategies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to prospectively assess pain and associated analgesic consumption after otological surgery comparing two prescription patterns. STUDY DESIGN: A prospective nonrandomized consecutive cohort study. METHODS: 125 adult patients undergoing ambulatory otologic surgery-cochlear implantation and endaural middle ear surgery, were assigned (according to surgeon's preference) and prospectively studied in two arms: 1) acetaminophen 500 mg + ibuprofen 400 mg; 2) acetaminophen 500 mg + codeine 30 mg. Pain levels, medication dose, disposal patterns of opioids, and suspected side effects were evaluated. RESULTS: All patients reported mild to moderate pain. There was a statistically significant reduction of pain from day to day, which was on average 0.26 lower than the day before. Sufficient pain control could be achieved with both drug regimens with no significant difference in pain levels. Only 50% of patients who were prescribed opioids used them. Additionally, the median tablet intake was 3 tablets while 10 to 20 tablets were prescribed. The majority of patients (97%) did not dispose of these drugs safely. CONCLUSION: Adequate analgesia was achieved in both arms of this study. Pain control following otologic surgery with a combination of acetaminophen and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs is recommended unless contraindications or chronic opioid use are present. If opioids such as codeine (30 mg) are prescribed, the amount should be reduced as low as possible, such as five tablets, based on our studied population. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 Laryngoscope, 132:204-211, 2022.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".