Reversal of an Unintentional Spinal Anesthetic by Cerebrospinal Lavage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: In this case report, we describe the use of cerebrospinal fluid lavage as a successful treatment of an inadvertent intrathecally placed epidural catheter in a 14-yr-old girl who underwent a combination of epidural anesthesia and general anesthesia for orthopedic surgery. In this case, a large amount of local anesthetic was injected (the total possible intrathecal injection was 200 mg of lidocaine and 61 mg of bupivacaine), resulting in apnea and fixed dilated pupils in the patient at the end of surgery. Twenty milliliters of cerebrospinal fluid was replaced with 10 mL of normal saline and 10 mL of lactated Ringer's solution from the "epidural" catheter. Spontaneous respiration returned 5 min later, and the patient was tracheally extubated after 30 min. No signs of neurological deficit or postdural puncture headache were noted after surgery. IMPLICATIONS: Cerebrospinal lavage may be a helpful adjunct to the conventional supportive management of patients in the event of an inadvertent total spinal.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".