Comparison of Proximal Injections of Local Anesthetics with Distal Injections in Intravenous Block
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Perfect pain management is one of the most essential problems in anesthesia. Intravenous block isconsidered a simple anesthetic method to reduce extremity pain. This study is aimed to determine the effect ofproximal injection compared with distal injections to avoid the problems related to be in the vicinity of thesurgical field and making use of the larger proximal veins instead of the tiny distal vessels.Methods: In this randomized double blind clinical trial, the patients with traumatic injuries of upper extremitiesreferred to Rajaie Hospital from October 2003 to February 2004 were studied. The cases were divided blindly into two groups. In one group injections were performed proximally and for the second group distally.Results: This study was based on the data from 100 serial patients. The average time to achieve analgesia was4.17 + 0.57 minutes for the patients who received distal injections and for the cases that had proximal injectionthe mean time for analgesia was 5.19 + 0.55. There was no difference in the rate of haematoma formationbetween the two groups.Conclusions: In intravenous nerve block, the injection of local anesthetic agents in the proximal parts of thelimbs is a safe method and is considered as effective as distal injections.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".