A Prospective, Randomized Comparison Between Ultrasound-Guided Supraclavicular, Infraclavicular, and Axillary Brachial Plexus Blocks
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it