MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386260933 · doi:10.1093/jbcr/irad045.272

297 Pressure in the Operating Room (OR): another Possible Contributor to Hospital Acquired Pressure Injuries (HAPIs)

2023· article· en· W4386260933 on OpenAlexaff
Thomas Milazzo, Robert Cartotto, H. Löo, Alan D. Rogers

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Burn Care & Research · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAirway Management and Intubation Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSupine positionButtocksAnesthesiaSurgerySkin graftingBurn centerPoison controlEmergency medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction Burn patients are at risk for HAPIs. An unexamined factor that may contribute to HAPI development is the effect of pressure from the OR table. Burn patients often require multiple prolonged surgical procedures. The purpose of this study was to measure pressure on the buttocks and sacral area during burn OR procedures under general anesthesia (GA). This has not been previously assessed in the burn literature. Methods Prospective study of consecutive adult burn patients admitted to an ABA-verified burn center who required surgery under GA between 06/01/22 and 08/12/22. We studied only cases that were supine, including those with both legs down (BLD), one leg suspended (one leg up: 1LU) or both legs suspended (two legs up: 2LU). Pressures on the buttocks and sacral area were measured using a commercial sensor mat which sent continuous real-time pressure measurements wirelessly to a laptop computer. Thousands of individual pressure measurements were integrated and organized to show average and peak pressures over repetitive 10-minute intervals during the entire operative procedure. Also, a continuous visual color-coded map of the sacral and buttock areas showing high ( >75 mmHg-red), medium (10-75 mmHg -yellow) and low ( < 10 mmHg -blue/green) pressures was created for each procedure. Results are shown as mean ± SD. Results Recordings were completed in 41 procedures (35 acute excision & grafting, 5 reconstructive, 1 tracheostomy) among 28 patients ( 48 ± 17 yrs, % TBSA burn 19 ± 17, weight 80 ± 20 kg, BMI 27 ± 6). During BLD, over 125 ± 81 min, the average pressure (Pave) was 47 ± 7 mmHg and peak pressure (Ppeak) reached 82 ± 23 mmHg. During isolated 1LU periods, Pave was 53 ± 9 mmHg over 74 ± 58 minutes with a Ppeak of 93 ± 23 mmHg and during isolated 2LU, Pave and Ppeak were respectively 55 ± 10 mmHg over 78 ± 40 min and 98 ± 23 mmHg. Both Pave and Ppeak increased significantly from procedures with BLD to 1LU to 2LU (p< 0.001). Pave crept steadily upwards during both BLD and 1LU or 2LU procedures (Figure). We observed that Pave had a positive relationship with weight, regardless of operative position. Conclusions Prolonged moderate to high pressures are exerted on the sacral and buttock areas, especially with one or both legs suspended, during burn surgery. These novel observations suggest that pressure from the OR table could contribute to HAPI development. Applicability of Research to Practice With this risk identified, interventions to lower or interrupt pressure exposure during burn surgery should be identified next.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.396
Teacher spread0.351 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Burn Care & ResearchSame topicAirway Management and Intubation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207