Ultrasound and Nerve Stimulation-Guided L5 Nerve Root Block
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Case series. OBJECTIVE: Evaluation of ultrasound and nerve stimulation-guided L5 nerve root block technique. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve block has become clinically applied. However, selective lumbosacral nerve root block is conducted under radiographic guidance, which involves patients and operators being exposed to radiation. In addition, it cannot be carried out easily during outpatient visits or at the bedside. We conducted L5 nerve root block, which is one of the most common lumbosacral nerve root block under ultrasonic guidance, using electrical nerve stimulation. METHODS: We assessed the effectiveness of ultrasound and nerve stimulation-guided L5 nerve root block on 78 patients with L5 radicular syndrome. To compare ultrasonic guidance using electrical nerve stimulation with radiographic guidance, we used a contrast agent and assessed its distribution. RESULTS: After nerve block, decreased sensation at L5 neural region and diminished/fully resolved pain was observed in all patients except for 3 in whom nerve block could not be conducted as their articular process protruded laterally. Concerning the response to stimulation, all except for these 3 felt the tapping sensation at their L5 neural regions, but no contraction of muscles was observed. The number of patients who showed an extraneural, paraneural, and intraneural pattern on contrast radiography was 71, 4, and 0, respectively. CONCLUSION: Ultrasound-guided L5 nerve root block using electrical nerve stimulation is a safe and effective method.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".