To Close or Not To Close, That Is One of the Questions? Perceptions of Trauma Association of Canada Surgical Members on the Management of the Open Abdomen
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The optimal abdominal closure in critically ill surgical/trauma patients remains controversial with a wide variety of commonly employed techniques. We sought to evaluate clinical equipoise by surveying Canadian surgeons regarding the use of temporary abdominal closure strategies in damage control and emergency situations. METHODS: A structured mixed-mode (Website and paper), scenario-based questionnaire was developed by members of the Canadian Trauma Trials Collaborative and directed to surgical members of the Trauma Association of Canada (TAC). RESULTS: The overall response rate was 84% (86 out of 102). In resuscitated hemodynamically stable trauma patients, 42% (29 out of 69) of respondents elected to primarily close an "extremely tight" abdominal cavity while only 23% (16 out of 70) would primarily close the same patient when physiologic exhaustion (Damage control (DC) conditions-hypothermia, acidosis, and coagulopathy) supervened. Although the majority reported preference for temporizing abdominal closures [73% (51 out of 70) non-DC, 75% (52 out of 69) DC] when the fascia was physically impossible to close; the reported primary use of mesh in these situations was quite high [24.6% (17 out of 69) non-DC, 24% (16 out of 69) DC], including a reported 7% (5 out of 69) nonabsorbable mesh usage in a contaminated octogenarian abdomen. CONCLUSION: Reported opinions suggest an overall appreciation for markers of "Damage Control," although clinical equipoise exists regarding the preferred technique and a frequent early use of mesh. These results highlight the necessity for further research but suggest challenges in defining a common standard for multicenter trials.
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 | 0.005 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".