Bupivacaine Digital Blocks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The goals of this study are threefold: (1) to determine what effect epinephrine has on the duration of bupivacaine finger block anesthesia; (2) to see whether the duration of action of bupivacaine on digital pain relief is the same duration as numbness to touch/pressure; and (3) to assess the fingertip temperature changes that result from bupivacaine digital blocks. METHODS: The ring fingers of both hands of 44 volunteers were randomized to injection of bupivacaine with or without 1:200,000 epinephrine. The durations of time for digits to return to normal pain, touch, pressure sensation, and fingertip temperature were measured and recorded. RESULTS: There were three main findings: (1) the pain block of bupivacaine lasts only half as long (15 hours) as the return to normal sensation (30 hours); (2) the effect of adding epinephrine to bupivacaine prolongs the duration of pain relief in a finger block for only an additional 1.5 hours; (3) in addition to pain relief, bupivacaine finger blocks cause fingertip hyperemia with consistent significant fingertip temperature elevation that lasts 15 hours. CONCLUSIONS: The duration of bupivacaine pain relief is the clinically important factor that needs to be reported in bupivacaine trials. Patients should be informed that the return of pain will occur much sooner than the return of normal sensation. Adding epinephrine to bupivacaine does not add a clinically significant length of time to pain relief. Bupivacaine finger blocks provide prolonged hyperemia and pain block to fingertips, which may be useful in the treatment of acute frostbite. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, I.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.004 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".