MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2804547784 · doi:10.1177/2325967118771616

Fluid Extravasation in Shoulder Arthroscopic Surgery: A Systematic Review

2018· review· en· W2804547784 on OpenAlexaff
Muzammil Memon, Jeffrey Kay, Arian Gholami, Nicole Simunovic, Olufemi R. Ayeni

Bibliographic record

VenueOrthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChemotherapy-related skin toxicity
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineChecklistSystematic reviewMEDLINEAirwayMeta-analysisSurgeryComplicationIntubationInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Arthroscopic surgery of the shoulder joint has become increasingly more common given its advantages over open surgery; however, one rare but potentially life-threatening complication is fluid extravasation into the surrounding tissues, causing edema, respiratory compromise, abnormal results on laboratory blood tests, and possibly death. Currently, no systematic review exists that summarizes the existing clinical research on this topic. PURPOSE: To perform a systematic review on fluid extravasation as a complication of shoulder arthroscopic surgery, specifically assessing clinical presentation, risk factors, management, and outcomes. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. METHODS: Two reviewers independently searched 3 databases (PubMed, Ovid [MEDLINE], and Embase) from database inception until July 1, 2017. The PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) checklist guided the reporting and data abstraction. The methodological quality of these studies was assessed using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) checklist. The results are presented in a narrative summary fashion using descriptive statistics including ranges and agreement statistics. RESULTS: A total of 26 studies (20 case reports, 4 case series, and 2 prospective comparative studies) encompassing 205 patients (mean age, 50.8 years [range, 15-83 years]) were included. The most common signs of fluid extravasation included chest wall swelling (n = 86) and neck swelling (n = 116). In 32 patients, observation alone was sufficient. Other patients required airway intubation (n = 16), diuretics (n = 7), steroids (n = 1), and percutaneous drainage of fluid (n = 1). Clinical edema resolved after 2 to 48 hours, and patients were discharged 1 to 20 days postoperatively. Serious complications included transfer to the intensive care unit (n = 14), anterior interosseous nerve palsy (n = 4), rhabdomyolysis (n = 1), and death (n = 1). CONCLUSION: Fluid extravasation has the potential to be a life-threatening complication of shoulder arthroscopic surgery; however, it is most commonly managed nonoperatively, and symptoms typically resolve with no evidence of long-term complications. Intraoperative surgical decisions, such as minimizing the surgical time and volume of irrigation fluid used, may limit fluid extravasation, while careful intraoperative monitoring may facilitate prompt diagnosis and management to optimize patient outcomes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.043
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.043
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.010
Bibliometrics0.0100.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.302 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations50
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOrthopaedic Journal of Sports MedicineSame topicChemotherapy-related skin toxicityFrench-language works237,207