Wound/intra-articular infiltration or peripheral nerve blocks for orthopedic joint surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Pain following arthroplasty is managed utilizing continuous peripheral nerve blocks (PNB) or local infiltration analgesia (LIA). The current economic climate in many countries requires discharge from the hospital within a couple of days following arthroplasty. Earlier studies had documented the efficacy of LIA for lower limb arthroplasty with preserved motor function and early rehabilitation, but some recent studies fail to confirm such a benefit. The motor block associated with PNB can be challenging with well tolerated rehabilitation. This review will discuss the efficacy and safety of these two analgesic techniques. RECENT FINDINGS: LIA facilitates early rehabilitation with total knee joint arthroplasty but such a benefit may not be obvious with total hip arthroplasty in the presence of multimodal analgesia. LIA data are very diverse depending on drugs injected, site of catheters, drug dosing and use of adjuvants. Chondrolysis documented with shoulder surgery with LIA is not a concern as there is no cartilage left with arthroplasty except in uniknees. Unpredictable motor weakness poses challenge with lower limb nerve blocks. SUMMARY: More rigorously conducted large-scale comparative studies are required to document the relative safety and efficacy of these two analgesic techniques. Standardization of infiltration techniques, catheter location, drugs and dosing are much needed. LIA with extended duration long-acting local anesthetic is in its infancy and may be an alternative to PNBs.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".