Posterior Interscalene Block: An Ultrasound‐Guided Case Series and Overview Of History, Anatomy and Techniques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The posterior interscalene block has been described as an alternative to the lateral interscalene block. However, this technique has not gained popularity because of the close proximity of the approach to vascular and central neural structures. OBJECTIVE: To describe the posterior interscalene block technique using ultrasound imaging, and to review the history of its evolution. METHODS: The use of ultrasound imaging to facilitate the insertion of interscalene catheters using the posterior approach in 11 patients undergoing total shoulder arthroplasty is described. RESULTS: All 11 patients had satisfactory analgesia in the first 24 h of the postoperative period. None of the patients complained of neck pain, as had been found in earlier techniques using the posterior approach. CONCLUSIONS: This modification of the posterior approach is a safe and effective method for the insertion of interscalene brachial plexus catheters. These catheters are also comfortable for patients and, in the present study, none of the catheters inadvertently fell out.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".