Inadvertent Cervical Epidural Catheter Placement via the Caudal Route Using Electrical Stimulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brief Inadvertent placement of an epidural catheter in the cervical region via the caudal route is described in an infant who underwent revision of a fundoplication. We attempted electrical stimulation (the Tsui test) via the epidural catheter to confirm correct placement and positioning of the catheter tip. In this case, the epidural catheter was inadvertently advanced to the cervical region, resulting in stimulation of the phrenic nerve. These diaphragmatic twitches were misinterpreted as chest wall twitches, and it was incorrectly assumed that the catheter was in the thoracic region. To avoid misinterpretation of the stimulation level, the catheter should be continuously stimulated while it is advanced. We also recommend that the catheter length be estimated before insertion (although doing so did not help in this case) and that the catheter position be radiographically confirmed after surgery. IMPLICATIONS: To avoid misinterpretation of the stimulation level with the Tsui test, the epidural catheter should be continuously stimulated while it is advanced. The length of epidural catheter required should be predetermined before insertion, and the position of the catheter should also be radiographically confirmed after surgery.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".