Variation Among Surgeons Regarding the Use of Preoperative Antibiotics in Percutaneous Pinning Procedures of the Upper Extremity in the Pediatric Population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<b>Background:</b> Preoperative antibiotics may not be necessary, given the very low infection rates associated with percutaneous pinning (PP) procedures of the upper extremity (UE). The purpose of this study was to determine the patterns and variation surrounding the use of preoperative antibiotics when performing PP procedures of the child’s UE. <b>Methods:</b> A survey was sent to all members of Pediatric Orthopedic Society of North America to assess the use and opinions regarding preoperative antibiotics for PP procedures of the UE. Queries included the surgeon’s current practice and thoughts regarding the need for preoperative antibiotics based on the anatomical location of the procedure. <b>Results:</b> Eight-one percent of the 295 respondents routinely order preoperative antibiotics for all PP procedures of the UE; however, only 60% felt that all patients must receive preoperative antibiotics. The requirement for preoperative antibiotics varied based on the anatomical location—81% for shoulder, 70% for elbow, 66% for wrist, and 62% for hand/finger. Canadian surgeons were significantly less likely to believe that preoperative antibiotics must be used in all UE cases, all shoulder cases, and all elbow cases (all <i>P</i>s = .04). <b>Conclusion:</b> The vast majority (81%) of surgeons surveyed routinely prescribe antibiotics for PP procedures of the UE despite the fact that 40% of surgeons felt that antibiotics were not necessary for all procedures. As the PP procedure is performed more distally on the UE, fewer surgeons feel preoperative antibiotics are necessary. Future studies assessing infection rates with and without the use of preoperative antibiotics are necessary to determine the true need for these medications.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".