MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2061725456 · doi:10.5435/jaaos-21-08-443

Epinephrine in Local Anesthesia in Finger and Hand Surgery: The Case for Wide-awake Anesthesia

2013· review· en· W2061725456 on OpenAlex
Donald H. Lalonde, Alison Martin

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopedic Surgery and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsSaint John Regional Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLidocaineAnesthesiaTourniquetEpinephrineSedationLocal anesthesiaHand surgerySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Traditionally, surgeons were taught that local anesthesia containing epinephrine should not be injected into fingers. This idea has since been refuted in many basic and clinical scientific studies, and today, injection of lidocaine plus epinephrine is widely used for digital and hand anesthesia in Canada. The key advantages of the wide-awake technique include the creation of a bloodless field without the use of an arm tourniquet, which in turn reduces the need for conscious sedation. The use of local anesthesia permits active motion intraoperatively, which is particularly helpful in tenolysis, flexor tendon repairs, and setting the tension on tendon transfers. Additional benefits of wide-awake anesthesia include efficiencies and cost savings in outpatient surgical case flow due to the absence of conscious sedation.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.945
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.286 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it