A Prospective, Randomized Comparison Between Ultrasound-Guided Supraclavicular, Infraclavicular, and Axillary Brachial Plexus Blocks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This prospective, randomized, observer-blinded study compared ultrasound-guided supraclavicular (SCB), infraclavicular (ICB), and axillary (AXB) brachial plexus blocks for upper extremity surgery of the elbow, forearm, wrist, and hand. METHODS: One hundred twenty patients were randomly allocated to receive an ultrasound-guided SCB (n = 40), ICB (n = 40), or AXB (n = 40). Performance time (defined as the sum of imaging and needling times) and the number of needle passes were recorded during the performance of the block. Subsequently, a blinded observer recorded the onset time, block-related pain scores, success rate (surgical anesthesia), and the incidence of complications. The main outcome variable was the total anesthesia-related time, defined as the sum of performance and onset times. RESULTS: No differences were observed between the 3 groups in terms of total anesthesia-related time (23.1-25.5 mins), success rate (95%-97.5%), block-related pain scores, vascular puncture, and paresthesia. Compared with the supraclavicular and infraclavicular approaches, ultrasound-guided AXBs required a higher number of needle passes (6.1 [SD, 2.0] vs 2.0-2.6 [SD, 1.1-1.8]; both P < or = 0.001), a longer needling time (7.4 mins [SD, 2.2 mins] vs 4.9-5.5 mins [SD, 1.9-4.2 mins]; both P < or = 0.016), and a longer performance time (8.5 mins [SD, 2.3 mins] vs 6.0-6.2 mins [SD, 2.1-4.5 mins]; both P < or = 0.008). Supraclavicular blocks resulted in a higher rate of Horner syndrome (37.5% vs 0%-5%; both P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Adjunctive ultrasonography results in similar success rates, total anesthesia-related times, and block-related pain scores for the SCB, ICB, and AXB.
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 | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".