Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Pudendal Nerve Block Under Ultrasound and Fluoroscopic Guidance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although fluoroscopy is an established imaging modality for pudendal nerve block, ultrasound (US) technique allows physicians better visualization of anatomic structures. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety between the US- and fluoroscopy-guided techniques. METHODS: A randomized, single-blind, split-plot design was used to conduct the study. Twenty-three patients undergoing bilateral pudendal nerve blocks received US-guided injections to either the left or right side, whereas the contralateral side received a fluoroscopic-guided injection in randomized sequence. Injections consisted of 4 mL of 0.5% bupivacaine and 40 mg methylprednisone. The primary outcome was the success of the block in the distribution of the pudendal nerve along the perineum, rated as either absent, moderate, or strong. Secondary outcomes were the time to administer the blocks, quality of visualization of anatomic structures using US and fluoroscopy, distance of the final US-guided needle position from the ischial spine, and incidence of adverse effects. RESULTS: No differences in the degree of neural blockade were noted between US- or fluoroscopic-guided techniques for either temperature or pinprick blockade. Time to complete the procedure was significantly longer using US compared with fluoroscopy (219 [SD, 65] and 428 [SD, 151] secs, P < 0.0001). No significant differences were noted regarding the occurrence of adverse effects between the 2 techniques. CONCLUSIONS: Ultrasound-guided pudendal nerve blockade is as accurate as fluoroscopically guided injections when performed by an experienced clinician. However, the former took a longer time to perform.
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 | 0.009 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 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".