Evaluation of 25-gauge Quincke and 24 — gauge Gertie Marx needles for spinal anaethesia for Caesarean section
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the insertion characteristics and rate of complications between 25-gauge Quincke and 24-gauge Gertie Marx needles. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized study. SETTING: University of Benin Teaching Hospital; a university-affiliated tertiary centre. SUBJECTS: Parturients (ASA 1 and 2) scheduled for elective caesarean section. They were randomly assigned to receive spinal anaesthesia with either 25-gauge Quincke needle or 24-gauge Gertie Marx needle. The patients with abnormal spaces, coagulopathy, infection, pre-eclampsia/eclampsia or obesity were excluded. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The number of attempts at successful identification of the spinal space, intraoperative complications, incidence of postdural puncture headache (PDPH), non-postdural puncture headache (NPDPH) and backache. RESULTS: Sixty women were studied. The 24-gauge Gertie Marx needle resulted in more successful location of the spinal space on the second attempt (P<0.05). Non-postdural puncture headache was seen in 43% of the study population. PDPH was seen in 10% of the Quincke group and none in the Gertie Marx group. There was no difference in the incidence of backache in both groups. CONCLUSION: The ease of insertion and low incidence of PDPH with the Gertie Marx needle may encourage trainee anaesthetists to use this needle for caesarean section.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".