MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2327074955 · doi:10.1213/ane.0b013e31820b5ea3

Is a Patella Motor Response Necessary for Continuous Femoral Nerve Blockade Performed in Conjunction with Ultrasound Guidance?

2011· article· en· W2327074955 on OpenAlexaff
Richard Brull, G. Arun Prasad, Rajiv Gandhi, Reva Ramlogan, Masood Khan, Vincent Chan

Bibliographic record

VenueAnesthesia & Analgesia · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAnesthesia and Pain Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkToronto Western Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCatheterMepivacaineAnesthesiaFemoral nervePatellaNerve blockRopivacaineLocal anestheticSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Successful continuous femoral nerve blockade (CFNB) has been associated with the elicitation of a patella motor response during needle and catheter insertion. We evaluated whether a patella motor response is necessary when CFNB is performed in conjunction with ultrasound (US) guidance. METHODS: Ninety-eight patients undergoing CFNB (along with sciatic nerve block and spinal anesthetic) for total knee arthroplasty participated in this cohort observational study. Using out-of-plane US guidance alone, the tip of an insulated Tuohy needle was positioned superficial to the midpoint of the femoral nerve visualized in short axis. A nerve stimulator was turned on and the type of motor response (patella versus medial muscle) and minimum stimulating current from the needle were recorded. A stimulating catheter was then inserted and the type of motor response and minimum current from the catheter were recorded. Ten milliliters mepivacaine 2% was injected through the catheter. The primary outcome was sensory block defined as loss of sensation to pinprick on the anterior surface of the distal thigh measured 20 minutes after mepivacaine injection. RESULTS: Forty-three patients demonstrated a patella motor response, 43 demonstrated a medial motor response, and 12 demonstrated no motor response from the catheter. The proportion of patients with sensory block differed according to motor response from the catheter (patella [98%], medial [91%], and no motor response [75%]; P = 0.02), but there was no significant difference between a patella (98%) and medial (91%) motor response from the catheter (P = 0.58). The proportion of patients with motor block 20 minutes after local anesthetic injection also differed according to motor response from the catheter (patella [95%], medial [77%], and no motor response [67%]; P = 0.03). In addition, there was a significant difference between a patella (95%) and medial (77%) motor response from the catheter (P = 0.01). The mean minimum stimulating currents did not differ between patella and medial motor responses elicited from the catheter (P = 0.06). Postoperative pain and analgesic consumption were similar regardless of the type of motor response from the catheter. CONCLUSION: Based on observational data, a patella or medial motor response from the catheter similarly results in sensory block of the anterior thigh when CFNB is performed in conjunction with out-of-plane US guidance.

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)0.007
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Citations8
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnesthesia & AnalgesiaSame topicAnesthesia and Pain ManagementFrench-language works237,207