Diagnosis and Management of Orbital Compartment Syndrome in Burn Patients—A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Orbital compartment syndrome is a poorly understood complication of acute burns. The purpose of this systematic review is to summarize the literature describing orbital compartment syndrome in patients with burns to provide greater detail on risk factors and guide the management of this morbid condition. A systematic review of the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases was performed in June 2023 according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Study quality was assessed using 2 validated scoring systems. After removing duplicates, 303 unique articles were reviewed and 8 met the inclusion criteria. All publications were retrospective. Most studies considered intraocular pressure >30-40 mmHg as diagnostic for orbital compartment syndrome. In total, 60 unique cases of orbital compartment syndrome were reported. Orbital compartment syndrome occurred most frequently within 24 h postburn. The mean total body surface area of burn was 58.7%; the mean 24-h resuscitation volume was 6.01 cc/kg/%total burn surface area; and 86.5% of cases had periorbital burns. Surgical decompression always starts with lateral canthotomy. When pressures were not immediately reduced, cantholysis was performed. Study quality per median Newcastle-Ottawa Scores ranged from 38.9% to 94.4% (median 66.7%). A precise threshold for surgical decompression of orbital compartment syndrome remains conflicted; however, increased intraocular pressure > 30-40 mmHg warrants intervention. Burn surgeons/intensivists should be aware of the risk factors for this vision-threatening complication and act appropriately.
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 | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".