MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2138944912 · doi:10.1097/aln.0b013e3181c030dc

Outpatients Do Not Need to Void after Short Neuraxial Blocks

2009· article· en· W2138944912 on OpenAlexaffabout
Gabriele Baldini, Hema Bagry, Armen Aprikian, Franco Carli

Bibliographic record

VenueAnesthesiology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAnesthesia and Pain Management
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineVoid (composites)Composite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We thank Dr. Mulroy for his comments on voiding requirement in outpatients receiving neuraxial blockade with short-acting local anesthetic. We would like to take the opportunity to clarify some issues raised by Dr. Mulroy.In our review,1we identified several risk factors for postoperative urinary retention (POUR), such as type and duration of surgery, patient comorbidities, intraoperative fluid management, and choice of anesthetic and analgesic technique.In the setting of ambulatory surgery, we proposed an algorithm based in part on two previous studies by Pavlin et al. 2,3In the first study, patients were stratified before surgery in high and low risk for POUR. Patients who had a past history of urinary retention and those who underwent anorectal and inguinal hernia repair surgery were considered at high risk, even if they did not receive either spinal or epidural anesthesia. In the second study,327% of the patients who received neuraxial anesthesia with local anesthetic (bupivacaine or lidocaine ± epinephrine) were unable to void and had a bladder volume greater than 600 ml, thus requiring in-and-out bladder catheterization. These patients were identified by Pavlin et al. as high risk only because they received neuraxial anesthesia. However, in our opinion, the high incidence of POUR in this group was not caused by the use of spinal–epidural anesthesia per se , but by the use of long-acting local anesthetics. Mulroy et al. ,4in contrast, studied 46 patients without risk factors for POUR who received spinal or epidural anesthesia with short-acting local anesthetic with or without intrathecal fentanyl and who were discharged without voiding. None of them returned to the hospital because of POUR.The aim of our review was to bring to the attention of anesthesiologists the perioperative risk factors for POUR, and propose an algorithm on how to manage urinary retention judiciously. We agree with Dr. Mulroy that in outpatients with no risk factors for POUR, neuraxial anesthesia with short-acting local anesthetic does not increase the risk of POUR, and patients can be discharged home without voiding. However, in patients with preoperative risk factors for POUR, neuraxial anesthesia with short-acting local anesthetic may or may not further increase the risk, but the availability of a perioperative algorithm that includes the use of a bladder scan could facilitate the management of this potential complication.*McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Canada. franco.carli@mcgill.ca

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnesthesiologySame topicAnesthesia and Pain ManagementFrench-language works237,207