A Comparison of a Single or Triple Injection Technique for Ultrasound-Guided Infraclavicular Block: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Good success rates have been reported with ultrasound-guided infraclavicular block using one or multiple injections of local anesthetic. We hypothesized that a separate injection of local anesthetics on each cord enhances the onset of complete sensory block. We designed this prospective randomized study to compare the rate of complete sensory block using one or three injections of local anesthetic. METHODS: Patients scheduled for hand, wrist, or elbow surgery were included in this study. All blocks were performed under ultrasound guidance. In Group S (single injection), 30 mL of mepivacaine 1.5% was injected posterior to the axillary artery. In Group T (triple injections), 10 mL of mepivacaine 1.5% was injected on the posterior, medial, and lateral aspects of the axillary artery. Sensory block was evaluated every 3 min up to 30 min. The primary end point was the rate of complete sensory block at 15 min. RESULTS: Forty-nine and 51 patients were randomized in Groups S and T, respectively. The rate of complete sensory block was comparable at 15 min (Group S: 84%, Group T: 78%, P = 0.61) and at each time interval up to 30 min. There was no statistically significant difference in the rate of complications between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: The success rate and the onset of complete sensory block after ultrasound-guided infraclavicular block are not enhanced by a triple injection of local anesthetic compared with a single injection posterior to the axillary artery.
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 | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".