The Physiologic and Pathologic Effects of the Reamer Irrigator Aspirator on Fat Embolism Outcome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Intramedullary reaming of long bones before nail insertion has been known to cause an increase in fat emboli introduction into the bloodstream, which is a potentially fatal phenomenon. The goal of this study was to assess whether the reamer irrigator aspirator (RIA) reamer can reduce fat embolic load compared with the standard AO reamer. METHODS: Fifteen pigs were prepared using an intravenous catheter inserted into the marginal ear vein for fluid balance and drug administration. One third of the pig's blood volume was withdrawn to simulate hemorrhagic shock. Each animal underwent bilateral retrograde femoral reaming, cementing, and nailing using either an RIA or AO reamer. Assignment of a reamer type to the left or right side was done randomly and allowed for direct comparison of matching femur results. Outcome measures were obtained, namely, pulmonary arterial pressure, mean arterial pressure, partial pressure of arterial oxygen, and cardiac output. Staining techniques were used to ascertain fat emboli counts from lung tissue samples. RESULTS: For mean arterial pressure, partial pressure of arterial oxygen, and cardiac output after cement injection, the RIA reamer group showed statistically higher values than the AO reamer group. In corollary, the RIA showed statistically lower pulmonary arterial pressure levels. No differences were noted at baseline, during hypovolemia, and post resuscitation. With the Student t test, no statistical differences were found between reamers regarding fat emboli counts for both staining methods. With the Mann-Whitney test, the RIA reamer showed statistically fewer emboli (7.0 versus 74.5) (P = 0.02, Z = 2.33) using Oil Red "O" staining. CONCLUSIONS: The RIA reamer demonstrated superior results with respect to physiologic measures and fat emboli counts and may provide optimal results compared with the AO reamer.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".