An In Vitro Comparison of the Electrical Conducting Properties of Multiport Versus Single-Port Epidural Catheters for the Epidural Stimulation Test
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Effective conduction of electricity through a catheter is essential for the success of the epidural stimulation test. In this in vitro study we examined the electrical conductivity of single and multiport epidural catheters (with and without embedded metal elements) after being primed with normal saline. Seven different types of 19-gauge catheters (n = 5), either single-port or multiport catheters, with or without embedded metal elements, were studied. The proximal end of each epidural catheter was connected to the cathode of a nerve stimulator via an electrode adapter. The catheter, primed with normal saline, was placed at the bottom of a syringe filled with 5 different volumes of saline (1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 mL) and attached to an electrode adapter. The voltage of the peripheral nerve stimulator was measured using an oscilloscope. The electrical resistance between the proximal and distal end of the catheter was calculated using Ohm's Law. In catheters without metal elements the electrical resistances were too high to be measured. In catheters that had metal elements, the mean electrical resistances of the same catheter design (single-port or multiport) were similar. However, the electrical resistances of the multiport metal reinforced epidural catheters were significantly lower (P < 0.05) than the single-port metal coil reinforced epidural catheters. The volume of saline in the syringe had no impact on the measured electrical resistances. This study suggests that multiport metal reinforced epidural catheters have low electrical resistances and, thus, are a reasonable alternative to single-port catheters for transmitting sufficient current for performing the epidural stimulation test. On the other hand, epidural catheters without metal elements (single-port or multiport) are not suitable for performing the stimulation test.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".