The ultrasound‐assisted paraspinous approach to lumbar neuraxial blockade: a simplified technique in patients with difficult anatomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pre-procedural ultrasound imaging of the spine to identify the interspinous and interlaminar space has been shown to facilitate subsequent performance of lumbar neuraxial blockade. However, adequate visualization of the vertebral canal can be challenging for less-experienced operators, and particularly in subjects with difficult anatomy. In this case report, we describe a simplified technique of ultrasound-assisted neuraxial blockade that addresses these limitations and may thus be a useful fallback option. A pre-procedural scan is performed in which the main ultrasonographic landmarks to be identified are the neuraxial midline and the spinous processes, rather than the posterior and anterior complexes of the vertebral canal. Another key difference is the use of a paraspinous (or paramedian) needle approach rather than a midline approach that is advantageous where the interspinous spaces are narrowed by disease or suboptimal patient positioning. The anatomical basis and technical performance of this novel ultrasound-assisted paraspinous approach are presented in detail.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".