Neurological Complications After Regional Anesthesia: Contemporary Estimates of Risk
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Regional anesthesia (RA) provides excellent anesthesia and analgesia for many surgical procedures. Anesthesiologists and patients must understand the risks in addition to the benefits of RA to make an informed choice of anesthetic technique. Many studies that have investigated neurological complications after RA are dated, and do not reflect the increasing indications and applications of RA nor the advances in training and techniques. In this brief narrative review we collate the contemporary investigations of neurological complications after the most common RA techniques. METHODS: We reviewed all 32 studies published between January 1, 1995 and December 31, 2005 where the primary intent was to investigate neurological complications of RA. RESULTS: The sample size of the studies that investigated neurological complications after central and peripheral (PNB) nerve blockade ranged from 4185 to 1,260,000 and 20 to 10,309 blocks, respectively. The rate of neuropathy after spinal and epidural anesthesia was 3.78:10,000 (95% CI: 1.06-13.50:10,000) and 2.19:10,000 (95% CI: 0.88-5.44:10,000), respectively. For common PNB techniques, the rate of neuropathy after interscalene brachial plexus block, axillary brachial plexus block, and femoral nerve block was 2.84:100 (95% CI 1.33-5.98:100), 1.48:100 (95% CI: 0.52-4.11:100), and 0.34:100 (95% CI: 0.04-2.81:100), respectively. The rate of permanent neurological injury after spinal and epidural anesthesia ranged from 0-4.2:10,000 and 0-7.6:10,000, respectively. Only one case of permanent neuropathy was reported among 16 studies of neurological complications after PNB. CONCLUSIONS: Our review suggests that the rate of neurological complications after central nerve blockade is <4:10,000, or 0.04%. The rate of neuropathy after PNB is <3:100, or 3%. However, permanent neurological injury after RA is rare in contemporary anesthetic practice.
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 | 0.035 | 0.132 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".