Continuous interscalene block: the good, the bad and the refined spread
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Continuous interscalene block is popular for shoulder surgery, but there are several challenges when performing this continuous block. The interscalene catheter is susceptible to incidental dislodgement and migration due to movement of the head and neck. Another important consideration is phrenic nerve involvement; the phrenic nerve is susceptible to being incidentally anaesthetised with local anaesthetic during interscalene block, owing to its close proximity to the interscalene groove. We present two cases: firstly, a case demonstrating an interscalene catheter insertion approach that provides an effective spread of local anaesthetic perineurally within the interscalene groove, with the additional benefit of preventing catheter dislodgement. Secondly, we present a case in which ultrasound-guided interscalene catheter insertion resulted in phrenic nerve palsy in an asthmatic patient, where dilution or 'wash-off' of local anaesthetic with normal saline and repositioning of the catheter under ultrasound guidance resulted in rapid recovery of respiratory function and adequate pain control.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".