Feasibility and Efficacy of Ultrasound-Guided Block of the Saphenous Nerve in the Adductor Canal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Saphenous nerve (SN) block can be technically challenging because it is a small and exclusively sensory nerve. Traditional techniques using surface landmarks and nerve stimulation are limited by inconsistent success rates. This descriptive prospective study assesses the feasibility of performing an ultrasound-guided SN block in the distal thigh. METHODS: After the research ethics board's approval and written informed consent, 20 patients undergoing ankle or foot surgery underwent ultrasonography of the medial aspect of the thigh to identify the SN in the adductor canal, as it lies adjacent to the femoral artery (FA), deep to the sartorius muscle. An insulated needle was advanced in plane under real-time guidance toward the nerve. After attempting to elicit paresthesia with nerve stimulation, 2% lidocaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine (5 mL) and 0.5% bupivacaine (5 mL) were injected around the SN. RESULTS: The SN was identified in all patients, most frequently in an anteromedial position relative to the FA, at a depth of 2.7 +/- 0.6 cm and 12.7 +/- 2.2 cm proximal to the knee joint. Complete anesthesia in the SN distribution developed in all patients by 25 mins after injection. CONCLUSIONS: In this small descriptive study, ultrasound-guided SN block in the adductor canal was technically simple and reliable, providing consistent nerve identification and block success.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".