Acute Compartment Syndrome: An Expert Survey of Orthopaedic Trauma Association Members
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to describe current opinions of orthopaedic trauma experts regarding acute compartment syndrome (ACS). DESIGN: Web-based survey. PARTICIPANTS: Active Orthopaedic Trauma Association (OTA) members. METHODS: A 25-item web-based questionnaire was advertised to active members of the OTA. Using a cross-sectional survey study design, we evaluated the perceived importance of ACS, as well as preferences in diagnosis and treatment. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-nine of 596 active OTA members (23%) completed the survey. ACS was believed to be clinically important and with severe sequelae, if missed. Responses indicated that diagnosis should be based on physical examination in an awake patient, and that intracompartmental pressure testing was valuable in the obtunded or unconscious patient. The diagnosis of ACS with monitoring should be made using the difference between diastolic blood pressure and intracompartmental pressure (ΔP) of ≤30 mm Hg. Once ACS is diagnosed, respondents indicated that fasciotomies should be performed as quickly as is reasonable (within 2 hours). The consensus for wound management was closure or skin grafting within 1-5 days later, and skin grafting was universally recommended if closure was delayed to >7 days. CONCLUSIONS: ACS is a challenging problem with poor outcomes if missed or inadequately treated. OTA members demonstrated agreement to many diagnostic and treatment choices for ACS. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level V. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of the levels of evidence.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".