MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2158278888 · doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2014.10.018

Assessing Outcomes in Individuals Undergoing Fasciotomy for Chronic Exertional Compartment Syndrome of the Leg

2014· article· en· W2158278888 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

VenueArthroscopy The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMuscle and Compartmental Disorders
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFasciotomySurgeryPatient satisfactionRetrospective cohort studyInternal medicineClinical trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: The purposes of this study were to evaluate patient-reported outcomes after fasciotomy of the leg for chronic exertional compartment syndrome (CECS) and to determine the rate at which revision surgery was required and the prognostic value of intracompartmental pressure (ICP) testing. METHODS: This was a retrospective consecutive case series of patients with CECS who underwent preoperative ICP testing and surgical fasciotomy for treatment of CECS of the leg between September 2001 and January 2012. RESULTS: Of 69 eligible patients, 46 were evaluated at a mean follow-up time of 54.9 months (range, 3.9 to 127.3 months). Forty-two patients met the Pedowitz criteria for CECS diagnosis. Mean score on the Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS) was 70.4 (standard deviation [SD] ± 11.2) at follow-up and 72.3 (SD ± 11.2) at the patient-perceived time of best outcome. Best outcome was reported at a mean time of 14.3 months (range, 0.5 to 84 months). Five of 46 (11%) patients required a revision fasciotomy. Thirty-six of 46 (78%) patients reported being either satisfied (n = 14) or very satisfied (n = 22) at follow-up. The Pedowitz criteria were highly sensitive (97%) but not specific (10%) and had a positive predictive value (PPV) of 79%. CONCLUSIONS: Functional outcomes after fasciotomy for CECS were favorable. ICP testing was shown to be sensitive but not specific. Revision surgery was required for 5 of the 46 patients (11%). Patient satisfaction rates, return to sport, return to preoperative activity levels, and LEFS scores were all high. This case series confirms that fasciotomy is a safe and effective surgical treatment for CECS. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic case series.

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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.365

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.272 · 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