Spill Your Guts! Perceptions of Trauma Association of Canada Member Surgeons Regarding the Open Abdomen and the Abdominal Compartment Syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To survey surgeon opinion regarding the management of the open abdomen (OA) and abdominal compartment syndrome (ACS) to assess current practice and direct future prospective clinical studies. METHODS: Opinions of self-designated trauma, general, pediatric, and vascular surgeons belonging to the Trauma Association of Canada (TAC), were surveyed through a mixed-mode (mail and Web based) questionnaire. RESULTS: Among 102 eligible candidates, 86 (84%) responded; 83% did regular trauma call, 45% regular critical care call being a separate call 79% of the time; 79% worked in centers serving >500,000 people; the median year of practice entry was 1997. There was no standard definition of what constituted an "open abdomen", preferred time for re-operation, or preferred method for alternate fascial closure, although 90% reported having not closing the fascia after a trauma laparotomy. Being "physically unable" was reported as an indication twice as often as objective measures of airway or bladder pressures. The decision to proceed with OA was reported as rarely or never being made preoperatively by 78% of respondents. None reported an institutional policy regarding OA. Eighty-four percent reported (re)opening an abdomen for primary ACS, 46% for secondary ACS, 28% for tertiary ACS. Self-assessed familiarity for the ACS was 6/7 on a Likert scale. Physical examination was reported as a diagnostic criterion for ACS by 66%, and used to screen by 21% of respondents. CONCLUSIONS: There is no consensus regarding definition, functional indications, or management of an open abdomen in the perceptions of Canadian trauma providers despite a high self reported level of familiarity with the abdominal compartment syndrome. This is an area of practice with potential and requirements for further multi-center study.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".