MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4415439103 · doi:10.1302/1358-992x.2025.10.127

MULTICENTRE CLINICAL TRIAL OF A CONTINUOUS COMPARTMENTAL PRESSURE DEVICE IN PATIENTS WITH LONG BONE FRACTURES

2025· article· en· W4415439103 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Ross Leighton, M. Balhareth, Kelly Trask, Job N. Doornberg, Pierre Guy, Jason Hall, A-R. Lawendy, Aaron Liew, P. Schneider

Notice bibliographique

RevueOrthopaedic Proceedings · 2025
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueMuscle and Compartmental Disorders
Établissements canadiensQueen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Centre
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésClinical trialProspective cohort studyBlood pressureCompartment (ship)Orthopedic surgeryPerfusion

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Acute compartment syndrome (ACS) is an orthopaedic emergency that can develop after a wide array of etiologies. Continuous pressure monitoring may contribute to the early diagnosis of ACS. This multicenter prospective study evaluated a new compartmental pressure monitor that reports continuous pressures in real-time. Patients with acute long bone fractures were prospectively enrolled from six Canadian academic centers after obtaining informed consent. The study device was inserted in the compartment deemed by the attending surgeon most likely to develop ACS. Intracompartmental pressure (ICP) was continuously measured for up to 18 hours. Patients were simultaneously monitored for clinical signs of ACS and their vitals and pain levels were recorded. Compartment pressures were plotted along with perfusion pressures for the duration of the device measurements. Patients were grouped by timing of device insertion (pre-operative or post-operative) and by AO/OTA fracture classification to look for trends in ICP over time and correlations with clinical data. One hundred patients were enrolled between November 2020 and November 2022. There were 68 males and 32 females. The mean age was 41 years (range, 17–80). Eighty-nine patients received the device post-operatively and eleven received it pre-operatively. There were no complications related to the use of the device. Consistent with previously published literature (McQueen et al. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1990;72(3):395–7), the post-operative ICPs were found to be considerably higher than pre-operative ICPs (as shown in Table 1) but trended downwards very quickly if the ICP was not clinically significant. One patient developed ACS post-operatively; their pressures exhibited the same higher initial baseline measurements, but instead of steadily decreasing, the pressure plateaued at a relatively high level and then stayed consistently above the perfusion pressure (Figure 1). These data suggest that the trend of the curve in continuous pressure monitoring appears to be more significant than absolute pressure – which is a distinct change in understanding from the standard literature on diagnosing ACS. One patient with a fractured tibia illustrated a steep trend upwards in ICP pre-operatively, which pre-dated clinical symptoms by four hours. The patient underwent fasciotomy for ACS at the time of fracture fixation. Our results suggest that this device is a reliable and easy to use commercially available option for continuous pressure monitoring. We found that post-operative ICP can be higher than would have been acceptable in the literature, but usually dropped rapidly. These findings agree with the current understanding on the difference between pre-operative and post-operative ICPs. Further examination of the continuous upwards or downwards trends in compartmental pressure monitoring and the accompanying perfusion pressures should allow us to diagnose elevated ICP many hours earlier than would be clinically possible with the usual symptom complex of ACS. This could reduce the chance of a false positive or a false negative in dealing with patients at high risk of ACS, thus preventing unnecessary fasciotomies and drastically reducing the chance of muscle necrosis during the management of these difficult long bone fractures. For any figures or tables, please contact the authors directly.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,079
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,658

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,013
Tête enseignante GPT0,313
Écart entre enseignants0,300 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2025
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueOrthopaedic ProceedingsMême sujetMuscle and Compartmental DisordersTravaux en français237 207