Are chest compressions safe for the patient reconstructed with sternal plates? Evaluating the safety of cardiopulmonary resuscitation using a human cadaveric model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Plate and screw fixation is a recent addition to the sternal wound treatment armamentarium. Patients undergoing cardiac and major vascular surgery have a higher risk of postoperative arrest than other elective patients. Those who undergo sternotomy for either cardiac or major vascular procedures are at a higher risk of postoperative arrest. Sternal plate design allows quick access to the mediastinum facilitating open cardiac massage, but chest compressions are the mainstay of re-establishing cardiac output in the event of arrest. The response of sternal plates and the chest wall to compressions when plated has not been studied. The safety of performing this maneuver is unknown. This study intends to demonstrate compressions are safe after sternal plating. METHODS: We investigated the effect of chest compressions on the plated sternum using a human cadaveric model. Cadavers were plated, an arrest was simulated, and an experienced physician performed a simulated resuscitation. Intrathoracic pressure was monitored throughout to ensure the plates encountered an appropriate degree of force. The hardware and viscera were evaluated for failure and trauma respectively. RESULTS: No hardware failure or obvious visceral trauma was observed. Rib fractures beyond the boundaries of the plates were noted but the incidence was comparable to control and to the fracture incidence after resuscitation previously cited in the literature. CONCLUSIONS: From this work we believe chest compressions are safe for the patient with sternal plates when proper plating technique is used. We advocate the use of this life-saving maneuver as part of an ACLS resuscitation in the event of an arrest for rapidly re-establishing circulation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".