MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2007525952 · doi:10.1007/s11999-013-3192-3

Single-injection or Continuous Femoral Nerve Block for Total Knee Arthroplasty?

2013· article· en· W2007525952 on OpenAlexaff
Éric Albrecht, Dorothea Morfey, Vincent Chan, Rajiv Gandhi, Arkadiy Koshkin, Ki Jinn Chin, Sylvie Robinson, Philippe Frascarolo, Richard Brull

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Orthopaedics and Related Research · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAnesthesia and Pain Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkToronto Western HospitalWomen's College HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRopivacaineAnesthesiaFemoral nervePlaceboNerve blockAnalgesicArthroplastyLocal anestheticConfidence intervalFemoral nerve blockRandomized controlled trialRange of motionSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The ideal local anesthetic regime for femoral nerve block that balances analgesia with mobility after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) remains undefined. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We compared two volumes and concentrations of a fixed dose of ropivacaine for continuous femoral nerve block after TKA to a single injection femoral nerve block with ropivacaine to determine (1) time to discharge readiness; (2) early pain scores and analgesic consumption; and (3) functional outcomes, including range of motion and WOMAC scores at the time of recovery. METHODS: Ninety-nine patients were allocated to one of three continuous femoral nerve block groups for this randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial: a high concentration group (ropivacaine 0.2% infusion), a low concentration group (ropivacaine 0.1% infusion), or a placebo infusion group (saline 0.9% infusion). Infusions were discontinued on postoperative Day (POD) 2. The primary outcome was time to discharge readiness. Secondary outcomes included opioid consumption, pain, and functional outcomes. Ninety-three patients completed the study protocol; the study was halted early because of unanticipated changes to pain protocols at the host institution, by which time only 61% of the required number of patients had been enrolled. RESULTS: With the numbers available, the mean time to discharge readiness was not different between groups (high concentration group, 62 hours [95% confidence interval [CI], 51-72 hours]; low concentration group, 73 hours [95% CI, 63-83 hours]; placebo infusion group 65 hours [95% CI, 56-75 hours]; p = 0.27). Patients in the low concentration group consumed significantly less morphine during the period of infusion (POD 1, high concentration group, 56 mg [95% CI, 42-70 mg]; low concentration group, 35 mg [95% CI, 27-43 mg]; placebo infusion group, 48 mg [95% CI, 38-59 mg], p = 0.02; POD 2, high concentration group, 50 mg [95% CI, 41-60 mg]; low concentration group, 33 mg [95% CI, 24-42 mg]; placebo infusion group, 39 mg [95% CI, 30-48 mg], p = 0.04); however, there were no important differences in pain scores or opioid-related side effects with the numbers available. Likewise, there were no important differences in functional outcomes between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Based on this study, which was terminated prematurely before the desired sample size could be achieved, we were unable to demonstrate that varying the concentration and volume of a fixed-dose ropivacaine infusion for continuous femoral nerve block influences time to discharge readiness when compared with a conventional single-injection femoral nerve block after TKA. A low concentration of ropivacaine infusion can reduce postoperative opioid consumption but without any important differences in pain scores, side effects, or functional outcomes. These pilot data may be used to inform the statistical power of future randomized trials. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, therapeutic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.462
Threshold uncertainty score0.508

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.297 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations56
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Orthopaedics and Related ResearchSame topicAnesthesia and Pain ManagementFrench-language works237,207