Epidural catheterization in cardiac surgery: The 2012 risk assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The risk assessment of epidural hematoma due to catheter placement in patients undergoing cardiac surgery is essential since its benefits have to be weighed against risks, such as the risk of paraplegia. We determined the risk of the catheter-related epidural hematoma in cardiac surgery based on the cases reported in the literature up to September 2012. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We included all reported cases of epidural catheter placement for cardiac surgery in web and in literature from 1966 to September 2012. Risks of other medical and non-medical activities were retrieved from recent reviews or national statistical reports. RESULTS: Based on our analysis the risk of catheter-related epidural hematoma is 1 in 5493 with a 95% confidence interval (CI) of 1/970-1/31114. The risk of catheter-related epidural hematoma in cardiac surgery is similar to the risk in the general surgery population at 1 in 6,628 (95% CI 1/1,170-1/37,552). CONCLUSIONS: The present risk calculation does not justify not offering epidural analgesia as part of a multimodal analgesia protocol in cardiac surgery.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".