Tourniquet Safety in Lower Leg Applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To reduce the chance of injury due to pneumatic tourniquet use, the minimum cuff pressure required to maintain a bloodless field should be used. The purpose of this study was to find out if Limb Occlusion Pressure (LOP--the cuff pressure required to occlude arterial flow) is lower with a wide contoured cuff than with a standard width cylindrical cuff at the calf, if cuff pressures based on measured LOP will be lower than the typical 250 mmHg used in lower leg cuffs, and if a new automatic LOP measurement method gives the same results as the standard Doppler stethoscope method. SAMPLE: 16 adult volunteers were tested in a controlled laboratory setting, and 53 clinical cases were reviewed at two centers. DESIGN: Repeated measures comparison of LOP on volunteers with the two different cuffs and measurement methods, and review of clinical cases. RESULTS: LOP was lower with the wide cuff on all volunteers (mean reduction 20 mmHg, SD 8.6, range 5-35, p < 0.001). The average difference of 1.2 mmHg between Doppler and automatic LOP readings was not significant (p = 0.43). Based on the volunteer results, using LOP plus a safety margin of 40, 60, or 80 mmHg (for LOP < 130, 131-190, or 190+ respectively) with a standard width cylindrical cuff will lead to an average cuff pressure of 223 mmHg (range 170-299, SD 36), 11% lower than typical practice and up to 80 mmHg (32%) lower on some patients. Using a wide, contoured cuff should further reduce cuff pressures to an average of 195 mmHg (range 160-280, SD 33), 22% lower than typical practice and a reduction of up to 90 mmHg (36%). At two clinics, the wide cuff maintained a bloodless field in 48 out of 53 cases (91%) when used at 200 mmHg. CONCLUSIONS: Using a wide, contoured cuff at the calf should reduce required cuff pressures compared to a standard cuff. Setting cuff pressure based on LOP should further reduce cuff pressures for most patients compared to typically used pressures. With continued development, the new automatic method may become a viable alternative to the Doppler method and may make LOP measurement more practical in the clinical setting.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".