The Patient's Perspective on Carpal Tunnel Surgery Related to the Type of Anesthesia: A Prospective Cohort Study
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to provide prospective independently analyzed evidence on how patients feel about a carpal tunnel release (CTR) performed under local anesthesia only (no sedation or tourniquet) versus with local anesthesia, intravenous (IV) sedation, and a tourniquet. METHODS: This prospective cohort study compared 100 consecutive CTRs done with only lidocaine and epinephrine in Saint John, New Brunswick to 100 consecutive CTRs done with IV sedation in Davenport, Iowa. Patient perspectives on the anesthesia were captured in a blinded questionnaire 1 week postoperatively. RESULTS: For subsequent surgery, 93 % of wide awake patients would choose local anesthesia only and 93 % of sedated patients would choose sedation. Wide awake patients spent less time at the hospital (M = 2.6 h) than sedated patients (M = 4.0 h; p < .001). Preoperative blood work, electrocardiograms, and/or chest radiographs were done for 3 % of wide awake patients and 48 % of sedated patients (p < 0.001). Preoperative anxiety levels for wide awake patients were lower than for sedated patients (p = 0.007); postoperative anxiety was similar. There were no anesthesia complications in either group. Narcotics were used by 5 % of unsedated patients and 67 % of sedated patients (p < 0.001). Adequate pain control was reported by 89 % and 90 % of patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of patients from both cohorts liked whichever method of anesthesia they received and would choose it again. However, sedated patients spent more time at the hospital, required more preoperative testing, and reported greater preoperative anxiety.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it