Duration and cessation characteristics of heparinization after finger replantation: A retrospective analysis of outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To prevent postoperative thrombosis, indications for anticoagulation in finger replantation have been described, but no consensus has yet been found for cessation protocols. The aim of this study is to investigate cessation methods of intravenous anticoagulation after finger replantation. METHODS: A retrospective review of all patients treated for a finger replantation between December 2014 and July 2016 was performed. Only those who required postoperative treatment with intravenous heparin were extracted. Primary outcome was survival of finger at hospital discharge and data collection focused on postoperative anticoagulation regimens. RESULTS: 108 patients with replantation were treated with intravenous heparin and included in the analysis. When anticoagulated, survival rate was 60% (n = 65) at hospital discharge, wherein arterial and venous thrombosis accounted for 60 and 40% respectively. Descriptive analysis failed to demonstrate an increase in failure rates when tested for duration of intravenous heparin, fixed or variable infusion rates of anticoagulation and need for vascular grafts. However, there was a 2.8-fold (P = .009) increase in the survival rate with progressive weaning of anticoagulation rather than abrupt discontinuation. Subgroup analysis demonstrated similar findings when considering arterial thrombosis alone (OR 5.2, P = .012), but did not show any significant difference for venous thrombosis (OR 1.7, P = .344). CONCLUSIONS: Progressive tapering of intravenous heparin is associated with an increased survival rate after finger replantation, particularly for arterial thrombosis. Further prospective and randomized trials are necessary to elucidate the optimal duration, method of infusion and indications for vascular grafts.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".