MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2003999503 · doi:10.1097/aap.0000000000000051

Minimum Effective Volume of Combined Lidocaine-Bupivacaine for Analgesic Subparaneural Popliteal Sciatic Nerve Block

2014· article· en· W2003999503 on OpenAlexaff
Wallaya Techasuk, Francisca Bernucci, Tracy Cupido, Andrea P. González, José A. Correa, Roderick J. Finlayson, De Q.H. Tran

Bibliographic record

VenueRegional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAnesthesia and Pain Management
Canadian institutionsMontreal General HospitalMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLidocaineBupivacaineAnesthesiaSciatic nerveLocal anestheticNerve blockAnalgesicPopliteal fossaSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine the minimum effective volume (MEV) of combined lidocaine 1.0%-bupivacaine 0.25% with epinephrine 5 μg/mL in 90% of patients (MEV90) for ultrasound-guided subparaneural popliteal sciatic nerve block. METHODS: All subjects received an ultrasound-guided subparaneural popliteal sciatic nerve block (at the neural bifurcation) with combined lidocaine 1.0%-bupivacaine 0.25% and epinephrine 5 μg/mL. Using an out-of-plane technique, a 17-gauge, 8-cm Tuohy needle was advanced until its tip was positioned between the tibial and peroneal nerves inside the paraneural sheath. Volume assignment was carried out using a biased coin design, up-and-down sequential method, where the volume of local anesthetic administered to each patient depended on the response of the previous one. In case of failure, the next subject received a higher volume (defined as the previous volume with an increment of 3.0 mL). If the previous patient had a successful block, the next subject was randomized to a lower volume (defined as the previous volume with a decrement of 3.0 mL), with a probability of b = 0.11, or the same volume, with a probability of 1 - b = 0.89. Using a composite scale encompassing sensory and motor block, success was defined, at 30 minutes, as a minimal score of 6 points (out of 8 points). The 6-point score was intended to mirror successful postoperative analgesia. Patients undergoing surgery of the leg, ankle, or foot were prospectively enrolled until 45 successful blocks were obtained. RESULTS: Fifty-two patients were recruited for this study. Using isotonic regression and bootstrap confidence interval, the MEV90 of combined lidocaine 1.0%-bupivacaine 0.25% with epinephrine 5 μg/mL was estimated to be 13.3 mL (95% confidence interval, 10.2-16.4 mL). CONCLUSIONS: For ultrasound-guided subparaneural (analgesic) popliteal sciatic nerve block, the MEV90 of combined lidocaine 1.0%-bupivacaine 0.25% with epinephrine 5 μg/mL is 13.3 mL (95% confidence interval, 10.2-16.4 mL).

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.189
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.243 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations66
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRegional Anesthesia & Pain MedicineSame topicAnesthesia and Pain ManagementFrench-language works237,207