MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3081222924 · doi:10.1093/jbcr/iraa126

Orbital Compartment Syndrome Following Major Burn Resuscitation: A Case Series and Survey of Practice Patterns

2020· article· en· W3081222924 on OpenAlexaff
Sebastian Q Vrouwe, Kevin J. Zuo, Courtney H Grotski, Edward E. Tredget, Hall F. Chew, Robert Cartotto

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Burn Care & Research · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Ocular and Foreign Body Injuries
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineResuscitationDemographicsBurn centerAnesthesiaSurgeryEmergency medicinePoison control

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Orbital compartment syndrome (OCS) is a rare but devastating complication of over-resuscitation in burn patients that may lead to permanent visual loss. The purpose of this study was to 1) present a series of burn patients with OCS and 2) survey practice patterns of monitoring intra-ocular pressure (IOP) during burn resuscitation. Cases of OCS at two American Burn Association (ABA)-verified burn centers were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were included if they 1) required lateral canthotomy/cantholysis for elevated IOPs or 2) developed blindness on admission unrelated to any other ocular pathology. Data were collected on demographics, burn characteristics, fluid administration, ophthalmologic findings, and complications. An eight-item electronic survey was distributed by email through the ABA to all physician members. Twelve patients with OCS were identified, with a mean age of 47.8 ± 12.4 years and TBSA of 63.7 ± 18.6%. Mean fluid resuscitation at 24 hours was 4.9 ± 1.6 ml/kg/%TBSA or 0.29 ± 0.06 liter/kg. Eight patients underwent canthotomy/cantholysis for OCS, whereas four were later found to have visual loss. A total of 83 (14%) ABA physicians responded to the survey. IOP was routinely measured by 23% of respondents during acute burn resuscitation. OCS appears to have developed despite a relatively low 24-hour ml/kg/% burn resuscitation volume, but with a relatively higher cumulative (liter/kg) fluid volume. Their survey found that monitoring of IOP during burn resuscitation is not routinely performed by the majority of providers. Taken together, the present study suggests clinical guidelines to recognize this complication of over-resuscitation.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.191
Threshold uncertainty score0.377

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.089
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.313 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations8
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Burn Care & ResearchSame topicTraumatic Ocular and Foreign Body InjuriesFrench-language works237,207