Randomized Double-Blind Comparison of Duration of Anesthesia among Three Commonly Used Agents in Digital Nerve Block
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: Three local anesthetics are commonly used for digital nerve block: 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine, 2% lidocaine, and 0.5% bupivacaine. The authors have not identified a study that has compared these three agents in digital nerve block in a randomized fashion. The goal of this study was to determine which of the three agents provided the longest duration of digital nerve blockade. METHODS: Thirty volunteers had the long finger of each hand along with one of their small fingers anesthetized with one of the above agents, respectively. The local anesthetic agent to be used in each finger was randomized. A double-blind design was used. Volunteers reported the time that each of their fingers returned to normal sensation at the tip. An analysis of variance was used to detect significant differences among the three groups, and subsequent pair-wise comparisons were performed using post hoc Tukey tests. RESULTS: The mean duration of anesthesia was as follows: 0.5% bupivacaine, 24.9 hours; 2% lidocaine with epinephrine (1:100,000), 10.4 hours; and 2% lidocaine, 4.9 hours. In both the Bonferroni and Tukey tests, all three agents provided significantly different durations of digital nerve blockade (p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: At an average of 24.9 hours, bupivacaine (0.5%) provides a significantly longer digital anesthesia time than the average 10.4 hours achieved by 2% lidocaine with epinephrine (1:100,000), which in turn provides twice as long an anesthesia time as 2% lidocaine (average, 4.9 hours).
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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