Phenylephrine Tumescence in Split-Thickness Skin Graft Donor Sites in Surgery for Burn Injury— A Concentration Finding Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to determine the lowest concentration of subcutaneous phenylephrine (neosynephrine) required for effective vasoconstriction in skin graft donor sites. Surgery for burn injury is associated with blood loss. Tourniquet use and tumescence with epinephrine have decreased blood loss. However, absorption of epinephrine has been reported with systemic effects. Phenylephrine, an α1-adrenergic receptor agonist, has vasoconstrictive properties similar to epinephrine's without other α-adrenergic or β-adrenergic activity. The aim of this study is to determine the lowest effective concentration of phenylephrine that will provide vasoconstriction in split-thickness graft donor sites. By using intensive care unit equivalency tables, the authors estimated a concentration of phenylephrine on the basis of current epinephrine tumescence. This concentration was titrated up or down according to an algorithm established a priori, determining the minimum concentration that achieved vasoconstriction in three consecutive patients. The primary outcome was local vasoconstriction. Secondary outcomes measured were pre-, intra-, and postoperative mean arterial pressure, systolic pressure and heart rate, graft take, and donor site healing. The subjects were six otherwise healthy adult patients (five men and one woman) with a mean age of 36 years. The average TBSA was 737.5 cm². Vasoconstriction was achieved at 5 μg/ml. No significant alterations in hemodynamic measures were observed. The optimal concentration of phenylephrine for prevention of bleeding in donor sites appears to be 5 μg/ml. Participants will be able to identify the effects of phenylephrine and epinephrine tumescence. They will also identify the concentration at which phenylephrine will be effective in donor sites.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".