Efficacy of Intravenous Mannitol in the Management of Orbital Compartment Syndrome: A Nonhuman Primate Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To report the efficacy of intravenous mannitol in the treatment of orbital compartment syndrome. METHODS: An experimental study was conducted on 4 nonhuman primates (8 orbits). Orbital compartment syndrome was simulated by injecting autologous blood into both orbits of each nonhuman primate until a pressure of 80 mm Hg was reached (time 0). After 10 minutes, nonhuman primates were randomized to receive an infusion of either mannitol or saline, given over 15 minutes. Five minutes after the infusion was complete, lateral canthotomy and cantholysis was performed on both orbits in isolated steps every 5 minutes. During the study protocol, orbital and intraocular pressures were recorded every 5 minutes, with a final set of measurements at 60 minutes. The primary outcome measures were the mean change in pressure from time 0 to 60 minutes, as well as the mean change in pressure during the infusion period. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference in the mean changes in orbital or intraocular pressure from time 0 to 60 minutes of the protocol. However, during the infusion period there was significantly greater decrease in both orbital and intraocular pressure in the mannitol compared with saline group (-34.0 vs. -9.3 mm Hg for orbital pressure [p = 0.03]; -34.8 vs. -9.7 mm Hg for intraocular pressure [p = 0.04]). CONCLUSIONS: While the definitive treatment of orbital compartment syndrome is lateral canthotomy and cantholysis, mannitol results in a rapid and clinically meaningful drop in orbital and intraocular pressure. The authors believe that their data support the routine use of mannitol in orbital compartment syndrome, especially when there is a delay in timely surgical management.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".