MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2075797413 · doi:10.1213/ane.0b013e3181770eda

The Effects of Varying Local Anesthetic Concentration and Volume on Continuous Popliteal Sciatic Nerve Blocks: A Dual-Center, Randomized, Controlled Study

2008· article· en· W2075797413 on OpenAlexaff
Brian M. Ilfeld, Vanessa J. Loland, J. C. Gerancher, Anupama Wadhwa, Elizabeth M. Renehan, Daniel I. Sessler, Jonathan J. Shuster, Douglas W. Theriaque, Rosalita C. Maldonado, Edward R. Mariano

Bibliographic record

VenueAnesthesia & Analgesia · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAnesthesia and Pain Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesNational Center for Research ResourcesNational Institute of General Medical SciencesUniversity of California
KeywordsMedicineRopivacaineAnesthesiaLocal anestheticSciatic nervePopliteal fossaBolus (digestion)Confidence intervalSurgeryNerve blockOrthopedic surgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: It remains unknown whether local anesthetic concentration, or simply total drug dose, is the primary determinant of continuous peripheral nerve block effects. We therefore tested the null hypothesis that providing different concentrations and rates of ropivacaine, but at equal total doses, produces comparable effects when used in a continuous sciatic nerve block in the popliteal fossa. METHODS: Preoperatively, a perineural catheter was inserted adjacent to the sciatic nerve using a posterior popliteal approach in patients undergoing moderately painful orthopedic surgery at or distal to the ankle. Postoperatively, patients were randomly assigned to receive a perineural ropivacaine infusion of either 0.2% (basal 8 mL/h, bolus 4 mL) or 0.4% (basal 4 mL/h, bolus 2 mL) through the second postoperative day. Therefore, both groups received 16 mg of ropivacaine each hour with a possible addition of 8 mg every 30 min via a patient-controlled bolus dose. The primary end point was the incidence of an insensate limb, considered undesirable, during the 24-h period beginning the morning after surgery. Secondary end points included analgesia and patient satisfaction. RESULTS: Patients given 0.2% ropivacaine (n = 25) experienced an insensate limb with a mean (sd) of 1.8 (1.8) times, compared with 0.6 (1.1) times for subjects receiving 0.4% ropivacaine (n = 25; estimated difference = 1.2 episodes, 95% confidence interval, 0.3-2.0 episodes; P = 0.009). In contrast, analgesia and satisfaction were similar in each group. CONCLUSIONS: For continuous popliteal-sciatic nerve blocks, local anesthetic concentration and volume influence block characteristics. Insensate limbs were far more common with larger volumes of relatively dilute ropivacaine. During continuous sciatic nerve block in the popliteal fossa, a relatively concentrated solution in smaller volume thus appears preferable.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations68
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnesthesia & AnalgesiaSame topicAnesthesia and Pain ManagementFrench-language works237,207