Comparison and convergence of compartment syndrome techniques: a narrative review.

IF 2.9 3区 医学 Q3 ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL
Naveen Sharma, Nitin Mohan Sharma, Apurva Sharma, Sarfaraj Mirza
{"title":"Comparison and convergence of compartment syndrome techniques: a narrative review.","authors":"Naveen Sharma,&nbsp;Nitin Mohan Sharma,&nbsp;Apurva Sharma,&nbsp;Sarfaraj Mirza","doi":"10.1080/17434440.2023.2206020","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Compartment syndrome (CS) continues to be a legitimate orthopedic emergency as it leads to thousands of amputations and permanent nerve and tissue damage to undiagnosed patients for more than eight hours. In CS, intracompartmental pressure is elevated, causing reduced blood flow inside the limb compartments. An erroneous diagnosis may result in unnecessary fasciotomies, the only treatment for this condition.</p><p><strong>Areas covered: </strong>This review examines the previous and current diagnostic and therapeutic practices for compartment syndrome. It also performs a comparative analysis of each diagnostic technique and its foresights.</p><p><strong>Expert opinion: </strong>Currently, most clinicians rely on a physical examination of the patient to diagnose CS. The primary reason for the physical examination is the lack of a gold-standard device. The invasive intracompartmental pressure (ICP) measurement technique is still the most commonly used. On the other hand, many noninvasive approaches have the potential to be used as diagnostic tools; however, more research is needed before they can be accepted as standard clinical approaches.</p>","PeriodicalId":12330,"journal":{"name":"Expert Review of Medical Devices","volume":"20 4","pages":"283-291"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Expert Review of Medical Devices","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17434440.2023.2206020","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Introduction: Compartment syndrome (CS) continues to be a legitimate orthopedic emergency as it leads to thousands of amputations and permanent nerve and tissue damage to undiagnosed patients for more than eight hours. In CS, intracompartmental pressure is elevated, causing reduced blood flow inside the limb compartments. An erroneous diagnosis may result in unnecessary fasciotomies, the only treatment for this condition.

Areas covered: This review examines the previous and current diagnostic and therapeutic practices for compartment syndrome. It also performs a comparative analysis of each diagnostic technique and its foresights.

Expert opinion: Currently, most clinicians rely on a physical examination of the patient to diagnose CS. The primary reason for the physical examination is the lack of a gold-standard device. The invasive intracompartmental pressure (ICP) measurement technique is still the most commonly used. On the other hand, many noninvasive approaches have the potential to be used as diagnostic tools; however, more research is needed before they can be accepted as standard clinical approaches.

隔室综合征技术的比较与收敛:叙述性回顾。
引言:筋膜室综合征(CS)仍然是一个合法的骨科紧急情况,因为它导致成千上万的截肢和永久性的神经和组织损伤,未确诊的患者超过8小时。在CS中,室内压力升高,导致肢体室内血流量减少。错误的诊断可能导致不必要的筋膜切开术,这是治疗这种疾病的唯一方法。涵盖领域:本文回顾了过去和现在的筋膜间室综合征的诊断和治疗方法。并对每一种诊断技术进行了比较分析和展望。专家意见:目前,大多数临床医生依靠对患者的身体检查来诊断CS。体检的主要原因是缺乏一个黄金标准的设备。有创腔内压(ICP)测量技术仍然是最常用的。另一方面,许多非侵入性方法有可能被用作诊断工具;然而,在它们被接受为标准临床方法之前,还需要进行更多的研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Expert Review of Medical Devices
Expert Review of Medical Devices 医学-工程:生物医学
CiteScore
5.90
自引率
3.20%
发文量
69
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The journal serves the device research community by providing a comprehensive body of high-quality information from leading experts, all subject to rigorous peer review. The Expert Review format is specially structured to optimize the value of the information to reader. Comprehensive coverage by each author in a key area of research or clinical practice is augmented by the following sections: Expert commentary - a personal view on the most effective or promising strategies Five-year view - a clear perspective of future prospects within a realistic timescale Key issues - an executive summary cutting to the author''s most critical points In addition to the Review program, each issue also features Medical Device Profiles - objective assessments of specific devices in development or clinical use to help inform clinical practice. There are also Perspectives - overviews highlighting areas of current debate and controversy, together with reports from the conference scene and invited Editorials.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信