Modification of the forearm tourniquet techniques of intravenous regional anaesthesia for operations on the distal forearm and hand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our aim was to find out if a modified intravenous regional anaesthetic block technique, used for invasive surgical procedures on the distal forearm and hand, results in a drier operative field than traditional methods. Twenty consenting adult (age > 18) patients who were to have an operation on the distal forearm or hand were randomised into two groups (n=10 in each). The first group was using a traditional bier block, with a double upper arm tourniquet. The second group was using a modified regional anaesthetic block technique, with a single upper arm tourniquet, and a single forearm tourniquet. All operative fields were recorded photographically and judged by the operating surgeon as "wet" or "dry". Analgesic requirements and subjective pain were recorded. Plasma lignocaine concentrations were measured. "Wet" operative fields were seen in 6 of the conventional and 0 of the modified group (p=0.01). Patients in the modified group were more comfortable during the procedures (p=0.004). This benefit was not sustained postoperatively (p=0.57). Plasma lignocaine concentrations were higher in the conventional group (p=0.004). The modified technique was as safe as the conventional technique but has the benefits of a drier surgical field and improved intraoperative comfort for patients.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".