Operating Room Noise and Team Communication during Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery: A Multicenter Study
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Operating room (OR) noise contributes to team miscommunication. In facial plastic and reconstructive surgery (FPRS), many cases are completed under sedation. This creates a unique environment wherein patients are aware of OR noise. The objectives of this study were to quantify noise and evaluate team members' perspectives on communication inside of FPRS ORs. This study was completed across three surgical institutions. Objective noise measurements were recorded with SoundMeter X. A communication questionnaire was delivered to OR team members following each case. Four hundred and twenty-three noise measurements were recorded during facelift/neck, eye/brow, rhinoplasty, and fat transfer/lip surgeries. The mean and maximum noise levels were 66.1 dB (dB) and 87.6 dB, respectively. Measurements during cases with general anesthetic (221/423, 52.2%) had higher noise measurements (70.3 dB) compared with those with sedation (202/423, 47.8%) (69.7 dB) (p = 0.04). The OR was louder with suction on (72.3 dB) versus off (69.3 dB) (p <0.00). Suction (34.5%) and music (22.4%) were the largest noise contributors according to questionnaire replies. Intraoperative noise, awake patients, and suctions/music may negatively impact FPRS OR communication. Innovation to improve FPRS intraoperative communication should be considered for effective patient care.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 it