MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2332066488 · doi:10.1097/aap.0000000000000193

A Randomized Comparison Between Infraclavicular Block and Targeted Intracluster Injection Supraclavicular Block

2014· article· en· W2332066488 on OpenAlexaff
Murray S. Yazer, Roderick J. Finlayson, De Q.H. Tran

Bibliographic record

VenueRegional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAnesthesia and Pain Management
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBlock (permutation group theory)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: This prospective, randomized trial compared ultrasound-guided targeted intracluster injection (TII) supraclavicular brachial plexus block (SCB) and infraclavicular brachial plexus block (ICB). METHODS: Sixty-four patients were randomly allocated to receive an ultrasound-guided TII SCB (n = 32) or ICB (n = 32). The local anesthetic agent (lidocaine 1.5% with epinephrine 5 μg/mL) was identical in all subjects. In the TII SCB group, half the volume (16 mL) was injected inside the largest neural cluster (confluence of trunks and divisions of the brachial plexus). Subsequently, the remaining half (16 mL) was divided into equal aliquots and injected inside every single satellite cluster. In the ICB group, the entire volume (35 mL) was injected dorsal to the axillary artery. During the performance of the block, the performance time, number of needle passes, procedural pain, and complications (vascular puncture, paresthesia) were recorded. Subsequently, a blinded observer assessed the onset time, incidence of Horner syndrome, and success rate (surgical anesthesia). The main outcome variable was the total anesthesia-related time (sum of performance and onset times). RESULTS: Due to a quicker onset [8.9 (5.6) vs 17.6 (5.3) minutes; P < 0.001], the total anesthesia-related time was shorter with TII SCB [18.2 (6.1) vs 22.8 (5.3) minutes; P < 0.001]. However no differences were observed between the 2 groups in terms of success rate (93.7%-96.9%), block-related pain scores, and adverse events such as vascular puncture and paresthesia. Expectedly, the ICB group required fewer needle passes (2 vs 6; P < 0.001) as well as shorter needling [4.8 (2.3) vs 9.0 (2.9) minutes; P < 0.001] and performance [5.6 (2.3) vs 9.5 (2.9) minutes; P < 0.001] times. Moreover, the ICB approach was associated with a decreased incidence of Horner syndrome (3.1% vs 53.1%; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Ultrasound-guided TII SCB and ICB provide comparable success rates. Due to its quick onset, TII SCB results in a shorter total anesthesia-related time.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations47
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRegional Anesthesia & Pain MedicineSame topicAnesthesia and Pain ManagementFrench-language works237,207