MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2073121421 · doi:10.1097/aap.0b013e3182707176

Minimum Effective Volume of Lidocaine for Double-Injection Ultrasound-Guided Axillary Block

2012· article· en· W2073121421 on OpenAlexaff
Andrea P. González, Francisca Bernucci, Kevin Pham, José A. Correa, Roderick J. Finlayson, De Q.H. Tran

Bibliographic record

VenueRegional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAnesthesia and Pain Management
Canadian institutionsMontreal General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLidocaineAnesthesiaVolume (thermodynamics)Local anestheticUltrasoundAxillary arterySurgeryRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to determine the minimum effective volume of lidocaine 1.5% with epinephrine 5 μg/mL in 90% of patients (MEV90) for double-injection ultrasound-guided axillary block (AXB). METHODS: All subjects received a double-injection ultrasound-guided AXB with lidocaine 1.5% and epinephrine 5 μg/mL. A 17-gauge, 8-cm Tuohy needle was initially advanced until its tip was positioned next to the musculocutaneous nerve. Volume assignment was carried out using a biased coin design up-and-down sequential method, where the volume of local anesthetic administered to each patient depended on the response of the previous one. In case of failure, the next subject received a higher volume (defined as the previous volume with an increment of 1.0 mL). If the previous patient had a successful block, the next subject was randomized to a lower volume (defined as the previous volume with a decrement of 1.0 mL), with a probability of b = 0.11, or the same volume, with a probability of 1 - b = 0.89. After injection of the musculocutaneous nerve, the needle was redirected toward the dorsal aspect of the axillary artery. For this second injection, volume assignment was carried out in a similar fashion; however, volume increments/decrements were 3.0 instead of 1.0 mL. Using a composite scale encompassing sensory and motor block, success was defined, at 30 minutes, as a composite score of 4 points (out of 4 points), and 10 points (out of 12 points) for the musculocutaneous and perivascular injection, respectively. Patients undergoing surgery of the forearm, wrist, or hand were prospectively enrolled until 45 successful musculocutaneous blocks or 45 successful perivascular injections were obtained. RESULTS: Fifty patients were included in the study. Using isotonic regression and bootstrap confidence interval (CI), the MEV90 was estimated to be 5.5 mL (95% CI, 3.0-6.7 mL) and 23.5 mL (95% CI, 23.1-23.9 mL) for the musculocutaneous and perivascular injection, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: For double-injection ultrasound-guided AXB, the MEV90 of lidocaine 1.5% with epinephrine 5 μg/mL is 5.5 and 23.5 mL for the musculocutaneous nerve and perivascular injection, respectively. Further dose-finding studies are required for other concentrations of lidocaine, other local anesthetic agents, and other techniques for ultrasound-guided AXB.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.260 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations90
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRegional Anesthesia & Pain MedicineSame topicAnesthesia and Pain ManagementFrench-language works237,207