Reduced Injection Pressures Using a Compressed Air Injection Technique (CAIT): An In Vitro Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: High injection pressures have been associated with intraneural injection and persistent neurological injury in animals. Our objective was to test whether a reported simple compressed air injection technique (CAIT) would limit the generation of injection pressures to below a suggested 1,034 mm Hg limit in an in vitro model. METHODS: After ethics board approval, 30 consenting anesthesiologists injected saline into a semiclosed system. Injection pressures using 30 mL syringes connected to a 22 gauge needle and containing 20 mL of saline were measured for 60 seconds using: (1) a typical "syringe feel" method, and (2) CAIT, thereby drawing 10 mL of air above the saline and compressing this to 5 mL prior to and during injections. All anesthesiologists performed the syringe feel method before introduction and demonstration of CAIT. RESULTS: Using CAIT, no anesthesiologist generated pressures above 1,034 mm Hg, while 29 of 30 produced pressures above this limit at some time using the syringe feel method. The mean pressure using CAIT was lower (636 +/- 71 vs. 1378 +/- 194 mm Hg, P = .025), and the syringe feel method resulted in higher peak pressures (1,875 +/- 206 vs. 715 +/- 104 mm Hg, P = .000). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that CAIT can effectively keep injection pressures under 1,034 mm Hg in this in vitro model. Animal and clinical studies will be needed to determine whether CAIT will allow objective, real-time pressure monitoring. If high pressure injections are proven to contribute to nerve injury in humans, this technique may have the potential to improve the safety of peripheral nerve blocks.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".