Survey of Tourniquet Use in Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Tourniquet technique varies among foot and ankle surgeons, and to establish a standard practice guideline the current standard of care should be examined. METHODS: One hundred and forty responses were received after 253 surveys were mailed to American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) members, concerning type of tourniquets, location, and pressures used. RESULTS: Cuff pressures most commonly used were 301 to 350 mmHg for thigh cuffs (49% of thigh cuff users) and 201 to 250 mmHG for calf and ankle cuffs (52% of calf cuff users, 66% of ankle cuff users). A substantial number of foot and ankle surgeons who use calf and ankle cuffs frequently use pressures above 250 mmHg (41% of calf cuff users, 19% of ankle cuff users). Only 9% use limb occlusion pressure when determining cuff pressure. CONCLUSION: Based on the existing evidence-based literature these pressures may be higher than necessary for many patients, and increased adoption of optimal pressure setting techniques as reported in the literature may help reduce tourniquet pressures used and risk of tourniquet injury. Respondents reported experiencing or hearing reports of breakthrough bleeding, nerve injury, and skin injuries under the cuff.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".