MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2328349394 · doi:10.1097/aap.0000000000000006

Comparison of Anatomic Landmarks and Ultrasound Guidance for Intercostal Nerve Injections in Cadavers

2013· article· en· W2328349394 on OpenAlexaff
Anuj Bhatia, Michael Gofeld, Sugantha Ganapathy, John G. Hanlon, Marjorie Johnson

Bibliographic record

VenueRegional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology
Canadian institutionsToronto Western HospitalSt. Michael's HospitalUniversity of TorontoLondon Health Sciences CentreUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCadaverFluoroscopyDissection (medical)Intercostal nervesUltrasoundAnatomical landmarkAnatomyRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Intercostal nerve (ICN) injections are routinely performed under anatomic landmark or fluoroscopic guidance for acute and chronic pain indications. Ultrasound (US) is being used increasingly to perform ICN injections, but there is lack of evidence to support categorically the benefits of US over conventional techniques. We compared guidance with US versus anatomic landmarks for accuracy and safety of ICN injections in cadavers in a 2-phase study that included evaluation of deposition of injected dye by dissection and spread of contrast on fluoroscopy. METHODS: A cadaver experiment was performed to validate US as an imaging modality for ICN blocks. In the first phase of the study, 12 ICN injections with 2 different volumes of dye were performed in 1 cadaver using anatomic landmarks on one side and US-guidance on the other (6 injections on each side). The cadaver was then dissected to evaluate spread of the dye. The second phase of the study consisted of 74 ICN injections (37 US-guided and 37 using anatomic landmarks) of contrast dye in 6 non-embalmed cadavers followed by fluoroscopy to evaluate spread of the contrast dye. RESULTS: In the first phase of the study, the intercostal space was identified with US at all levels. Injection of 2 mL of dye was sufficient to ensure compete staining of the ICN for 5 of 6 US-guided injections but anatomic landmark guidance resulted in correct injection at only 2 of 6 intercostal spaces. No intravascular injection was found on dissection with either of the guidance techniques. In the second phase of the study, US-guidance was associated with a higher rate of intercostal spread of 1 mL of contrast dye on fluoroscopy compared with anatomic landmarks guidance (97% vs 70%; P = 0.017). CONCLUSIONS: Ultrasound confers higher accuracy and allows use of lower volumes of injectate compared with anatomic landmarks as a guidance method for ICN injections in cadavers. Ultrasound may be a viable alternative to anatomic landmarks as a guidance method for ICN injections.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.269
Threshold uncertainty score0.444

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.303 · 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 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

Citations44
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRegional Anesthesia & Pain MedicineSame topicSpine and Intervertebral Disc PathologyFrench-language works237,207