MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Blunt Vascular Trauma in the Extremity: Diagnosis, Management, and Outcome

2003· article· en· W1975812710 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Trauma: Injury, Infection, and Critical Care · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVascular Procedures and Complications
Canadian institutionsWomen's College Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBluntSurgeryPopliteal arteryBlunt traumaVascular diseaseRetrospective cohort study

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Blunt vascular trauma in an extremity is an uncommon diagnosis. Considering the complexity of these injuries, it is worthwhile to determine how select factors affect the outcome of the limb and the patient. The objectives of this study were to review the diagnosis, management, and outcomes of patients who sustained blunt vascular injuries in the extremities and relate factors in their treatment to the outcome of the injured extremity. METHODS: A retrospective review of data on adult and pediatric patients who had a diagnosis of blunt vascular injury in an extremity and underwent some attempt at restoration of vascular flow was conducted. RESULTS: From January 1995 to December 2002, 62 patients (80.3% male; mean age, 33.2 +/- 15.8 years) sustained blunt trauma (mean Injury Severity Score, 14.6 +/- 8.4), with 93 vascular injuries in 65 extremities (16 upper and 49 lower). Hard signs of vascular injury occurred in 41 (66%) patients. An associated fracture and/or dislocation was present in 59 patients (95%). Preoperative arteriograms were obtained in 20 patients (17 occlusions, 2 embolizations, and 1 untreated). Vessel injuries were as follows: 16 upper (brachial artery, 50%) and 63 lower (tibial/peroneal/popliteal, 84%), with ligation being the most common treatment in the latter. Intravascular shunts were used to restore blood flow in 18 vessels (13 arteries and 5 veins) in 13 patients. Delays in diagnosis or treatment occurred in six patients, mostly because of errors in management/judgment. Delayed or late fasciotomies were performed in six patients, and five developed rhabdomyolysis. Six patients died. The age (p = 0.0006), Injury Severity Score (p = 0.0007), and Mangled Extremity Severity Score (p = 0.0009) were significantly different for the survivors compared with the nonsurvivors. CONCLUSION: Blunt vascular injuries in the lower extremities occur most commonly in the anteroposterior tibial arteries; injured arteries in the proximal upper and lower extremity require resection with interposition grafting, whereas those in the forearm or calf are usually ligated; the amputation rate in 65 injured extremities with blunt vascular trauma was 18.%, which is at least three times that for those who sustain penetrating injury; and delays in diagnosis and treatment are uncommon in these patients with multiple injuries.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.288

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.299 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it