A Comparison Between Ultrasound-Guided Infraclavicular Block Using the “Double Bubble” Sign and Neurostimulation-Guided Axillary Block
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brief BACKGROUND: Ultrasound-guided infraclavicular block can be performed using the double bubble sign. Previously described, the double bubble sign consists superiorly of the axillary artery (in short axis) superimposed on an inferior bubble created by local anesthetic injection. In this study, we compared this new method of brachial plexus anesthesia to the traditional triple-nerve stimulation axillary block. METHODS: Seventy patients were randomized to receive a single-injection, ultrasound-guided infraclavicular block using the double bubble sign or a triple-stimulation axillary block. RESULTS: Both methods produced similar success rates (89%–91%). However, infraclavicular blocks were associated with a shorter performance time (3.90 ± 2.27 vs 8.03 ± 3.92 min; P < 0.001) and lower block-related pain scores (2.70 ± 2.02 vs 4.17 ± 2.57 on a 0–10 scale; P = 0.01). CONCLUSION: Compared to triple-stimulation axillary block, ultrasound-guided infraclavicular block using the double bubble sign provided a similar efficacy, a shorter performance time and lower procedural pain scores. IMPLICATIONS: Compared to triple-stimulation axillary block, single-injection ultrasound-guided infraclavicular block using the “double bubble” sign (consisting of the axillary artery viewed in short axis superimposed on an inferior bubble created by local anesthetic injection) yielded a similar success rate. However, ultrasound-guided infraclavicular block was associated with a decrease in performance time and block-related pain.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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 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".