MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Use of a Nerve Stimulator for Thoracic Paravertebral Block

2002· letter· en· W2123734217 on OpenAlexaffabout
Scott A. Lang

Bibliographic record

VenueAnesthesiology · 2002
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAnesthesia and Pain Management
Canadian institutionsCalgary General HospitalFoothills Medical Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNerve stimulatorAnesthesiaSufentanilBlockadeNerve blockKetamineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

University of Calgary, Department of Anesthesia, Foothills Hospital, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. scottalang@shaw.caTo the Editor:—I wish to congratulate Dr. Karmakar on his very thorough and informative review on paravertebral anesthesia and analgesia. 1Dr. Karmakar has overlooked one technique of paravertebral blockade that, in my opinion, has shown particular merit and is worthy of further investigation—the use of a nerve stimulator. To my knowledge, the use of a nerve stimulator as a guide to the performance of paravertebral blockade was first alluded to by Drs. J. J. Bonica and F. P. Buckley. 2I have used and refined this technique for more than 5 yr now. As with any technique it has advantages and limitations. Some of its advantages include the following:Potential disadvantages may include the expense of the nerve stimulator and associated insulated needle, and the inability to easily observe a motor response in obese patients. Therefore, it may be prudent to have an assistant that can palpate a motor response. It is always prudent to use all of your senses to guide the needle, as with any technique.The technique is simple and can be used on either an awake or heavily sedated or anesthetized patient. Any of the approaches described in Dr. Karmakar's review article can be used. 1I sedate the patient with intravenous ketamine (2.5–5.0 mg), versed (0.5–1 mg), and sufentanil (2.5–5.0 μg), administer oxygen by nasal prongs (2 to 3 l/min) and monitor with a pulse oximeter. The nerve stimulator (Braun) is set to deliver a supramaximal current (5.0 mamp). I use an insulated 5 cm Stimuplex needle and have found that it is the ideal length for virtually all adult patients in the thoracic region (T2–T12). The patient is warned that they may feel a pulsating “buzz” or feel some movement in their chest or abdomen. They are asked to report these phenomena as soon as they are perceived. The technique that is chosen determines how the needle is advanced. If the transverse process is encountered the needle is redirected either above or below the transverse process and advanced until a motor or sensory response is elicited. If the transverse process is not encountered the needle is advanced slowly until either a sensory or a motor response is elicited in the distribution of the “ventral” ramus of the spinal nerve. It does not seem necessary to refine the motor end-point although it is my practice to do so. I have found that when the needle is positioned in this manner a motor response will be elicited at a current of between 0.2–2.0 mamp. Approximately 30–40% of the patients will report a simultaneous electrically induced paresthesiae. The technique can also be used to facilitate difficult intercostals nerve blocks.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.253
Threshold uncertainty score0.896

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.085
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations37
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnesthesiologySame topicAnesthesia and Pain ManagementFrench-language works237,207