MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6125161

The RAPTOR: Resuscitation with angiography, percutaneous techniques and operative repair. Transforming the discipline of trauma surgery.

2011· letter· en· W6125161 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2011
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPelvic and Acetabular Injuries
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePercutaneousAngiographyRadiologyEmbolizationSurgeryContraindicationInferior vena cavaResuscitationAbdominal aortaAorta
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Exsanguination and death are rapid consequences of untreated hemorrhage. At its simplest, successful treatment requires expedient localization and arrest of bleeding concurrent to adequate resuscitation. Fortunately, the continued improvement of percutaneous therapies now allows them to become more relevant to these treatment goals. The most recent definition of “trauma interventional radiology” is therefore “minimally invasive endovascular techniques used to arrest hemorrhage.”1 This concept reflects an evolution from primarily diagnostic/noninvasive aortic arch angiograms and extremity peripheral vascular angiography, to therapeutic procedures for hemorrhage control.2 In essence, this approach involves, first, blocking bleeding blood vessels/organs via arterial embolization and/or balloon catheters, and, second, realigning blood vessels via stent grafts. Hemodynamic instability has now become only a relative contraindication with published targets such as the spleen, liver, kidney, pelvis, lungs and all major abdominal vessels (aorta, iliac, renal, lumbar, inferior vena cava).3 Balloon occlusion of the distal aorta for bleeding pelvic fractures and proximal aorta for cross-clamping is also well established.4 It is our opinion that percutaneous trauma procedures can therefore be divided into 2 distinct subgroups: emergent interventions aimed at arresting hemorrhage (e.g., intravascular balloon occlusion with or without arterial embolization), and urgent interventions used to repair damaged vessels (i.e., stent grafting). Whereas urgent stent grafting should be performed by clinicians with extensive training and experience in both diagnostic and therapeutic angiographic techniques, the emergent arrest of hemorrhage is encompassed within the very definition of “trauma surgeon.” Considering that 70% of emergency angiographies occur in “off-hours,” with less than 15% performed within 90 minutes of arrival, surgeons trained in emergent percutaneous endovascular techniques who are immediately available at the bedside would be ideal.5,6 The order in which percutaneous and open procedures are performed can also be dynamic and best suited to a clinician trained to address each concurrently in real time. This demand for cognitive changes in the priorities and urgency of care cannot be understated. As a growing proportion of trauma patients with hemodynamically important vascular injuries are being treated emergently with angiographic techniques, the acquisition of endovascular skills by readily available trauma surgeons seems logical and appropriate. Given the evolving concept that traumatologists should play a role in the emergent arrest of hemorrhaging trauma patients via balloon occlusion, angiography and potentially angioembolization, visionary surgeons have already begun to embrace these approaches.2–4,7,8 Although the best route of skill acquisition for the trauma surgeon of the future is still undefined (additional endovascular training within trauma fellowships v. formal vascular training v. supplementary interventional radiology training), some programs (US-based acute care surgery fellowships) have already started to incorporate this paradigm into their training algorithms (1– 3 months of angiography training). It is clear, however, that in countries like Canada where percutaneous techniques typically reside within the domain of vascular surgeons and interventional radiologists, we will need to work very closely with our colleagues to define the differences between percutaneous damage control techniques used to arrest ongoing hemorrhage on an emergent basis, versus advanced repairs and stent grafting that should be performed by true content experts on a more delayed and time-friendly basis. In an ideal scenario, these emergent percutaneous therapies would be performed in the same physical location as open interventions, resuscitation and critical care. This would prevent the dreaded transfer of patients from one venue to another (trauma bay v. operating theatre v. angiography suite v. intensive care unit). To this end, the RAPTOR suite (resuscitation with angiography, percutaneous techniques and operative repair) is becoming available in a small number of centres (Calgary, Canada, and Sydney, Australia). These single suites offer the ability to treat all aspects of a patient’s critical injury (i.e., fixed angiography system, operating room, interventional radiology suite and intensive care unit). Furthermore, stakeholders from all aspects of this care (trauma surgeons, interventional radiologists, anesthesiologists and nurses) are involved and will respond on an emergent basis as needed. Given these rapidly evolving operative platforms, as well as the new multifaceted training approaches, the future of trauma surgery appears interesting and bright.

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.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.817
Threshold uncertainty score0.475

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.217 · 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