The Maximum Effective Needle-to-Nerve Distance for Ultrasound-Guided Interscalene Block
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the most fundamental, 1 yet controversial, tenets of regional anesthesia practice has been the adage “no paresthesia, no anesthesia.” Implicit to this concept is the requirement for direct needle-nerve contact to achieve a successful block. The advent of ultrasound (US) guidance for peripheral nerve blockade (PNB) has enabled providers to position the needle tip purposefully as close as possible to, and even inside, the target nerve. Consequently, much of the contemporary regional anesthesia literature has focused on the question “How close is too close?” while investigators challenge the safety limits of US-guided PNB. Regrettably, the risk of nerve injury persists despite US guidance and is underscored by reports of new functional deficits after interscalene brachial plexus block (ISB) performed under US guidance by experienced providers. Given that mechanical needle-nerve trauma is an important mechanism of peripheral nerve injury, providers are cautioned to avoid intentional intraneural injection or needle-nerve contact during US-guided PNB.8,14,15 Potentially hazardous needleto-nerve proximity may be especially relevant during US-guided ISB, where inadvertent injection beneath the epineurium may be as high as 50%. Subepineural, and particularly intrafascicular, injection of local anesthetic may increase the risk of nerve injury.17 Neural elements of the interscalene brachial plexus are predominantly comprised of axonal tissue and may be especially
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".