Ultrasound-Guided Versus Anatomic Landmark-Guided Ankle Blocks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Ultrasound-guided (USG) ankle block has been described; however, its clinical efficacy compared with conventional anatomic landmark-guided (ALG) techniques remains undetermined. METHODS: We performed a 6-year retrospective cohort study of all ankle blocks performed for foot surgery and extracted demographic, intraoperative, and postoperative outcome data. We divided blocks into 2 groups for comparison, depending on whether they were performed using an ALG technique or a USG technique. RESULTS: We identified 655 patients who received unilateral ankle block and 58 patients who received bilateral ankle block; we analyzed these separately. Trainees performed most blocks (approximately 80%). In patients receiving unilateral ankle block, successful surgical anesthesia was more likely in the USG group (84% versus 66%, P < 0.001). Patients in the ALG group were more likely to require supplemental local anesthesia (10% versus 5%, P = 0.04), unplanned general anesthesia (17% versus 7%, P = 0.001), or supplemental fentanyl (18% versus 9%, P = 0.002). Postanesthetic care unit pain scores were similar between groups. However, patients in the ALG group were more likely to receive intravenous opioids (21% versus 12%, P = 0.01), and they received a higher mean opioid dose (10.6 versus 8.7 mg intravenous morphine, ALG versus USG, P = 0.022). In patients receiving bilateral ankle block, successful surgical anesthesia was also more likely in the USG group (84% versus 57%); however, this was not statistically significant because of the small sample size. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that the USG technique of ankle block improves clinical efficacy compared with a conventional ALG technique, particularly in the hands of less-experienced practitioners.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".