MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4318169403 · doi:10.1097/iop.0000000000002313

Orbital Compartment Syndrome in Severe Burns: Predictive Factors, Timing, and Complications of Intervention

2022· article· en· W4318169403 on OpenAlexaff
E. Lacey Echalier, Ryan D. Larochelle, Jennifer L. Patnaik, Benjamin Echalier, Anne Wagner, Eric M. Hink, Prem S. Subramanian, Sophie D. Liao

Bibliographic record

VenueOphthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBurn Injury Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity College of the North
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTotal body surface areaRetrospective cohort studyBody surface areaSurgeryToxic epidermal necrolysisEyelidResuscitationOdds ratioAccidentalEmergency medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Severe burn patients require high-volume fluid resuscitation, which increases risk for orbital compartment syndrome (OCS). We aimed to understand surgeons' practice patterns and to examine risk factors for OCS, timing of lateral canthotomy and cantholysis (LCC), and complications of intervention. METHODS: A survey of American Society of Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery and North American Society of Academic Orbital Surgeons' practice patterns in burn patients was undertaken. In addition, a retrospective analysis was conducted of 107 patients with burns greater than 20% total body surface area at 1 institution from January 1, 2009, to June 1, 2018. Patients with Stevens-Johnson Syndrome or Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis, frostbite, or no ophthalmologic consultation were excluded. Risk factors for OCS, timing of LCC, and complications of the intervention were examined. RESULTS: In the survey, 37 of 54 respondents had treated burn patients, of which 29 followed no protocol. Threshold intraocular pressure for intervention varied widely, and nearly all reported having seen complications from LCC in burn patients. For the retrospective analysis, 107 patients met criteria, of which 22 (20.6%) required LCC. Renal failure, inhalation injury, eyelid burns, higher total body surface area, elevated lactate, increased number of escharotomies, and greater total fluid required were significantly associated with the clinical decision that the patient was at risk for OCS requiring LCC. Fluid resuscitation in excess of the Ivy Index (250 ml/kg) increased odds of LCC 8.6 times. Average time of LCC was 15.8 hours after burn. LCC patients experienced higher rates of complications including eyelid retraction, exposure keratopathy, and corneal ulceration. CONCLUSIONS: Severe burn patients should be monitored closely by an ophthalmologist during the first 48 hours for signs of OCS. Further studies should aim to recommend protocols guiding evaluation and intervention.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.474

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOphthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive SurgerySame topicBurn Injury Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207