MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2336136255 · doi:10.1213/ane.0000000000001236

Response Patterns to the Electric Stimulation of Epidural Catheters in Pregnant Women: A Randomized Controlled Trial of Uniport Versus Multiport Catheters

2016· article· en· W2336136255 on OpenAlexaff
Ruchira Patel, Cristián Arzola, Vitali Petrounevitch, Mrinalini Balki, Kristi Downey, Ban C. H. Tsui, Jose C. A. Carvalho

Bibliographic record

VenueAnesthesia & Analgesia · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAnesthesia and Pain Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of AlbertaMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAnesthesiaCatheterEpidural spaceLidocaineLumbarFentanylBupivacaineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The transcatheter electric stimulation test (Tsui test) can be performed at the bedside to confirm the correct placement of a wire-reinforced epidural catheter within the epidural space. The most commonly observed motor response with a uniport epidural catheter placed in the lumbar area is the unilateral contraction of the lower limbs. Wire-reinforced multiport catheters have recently been introduced into clinical practice; however, the characteristics of the Tsui test with such catheters are unknown. We designed a randomized controlled trial to test the hypothesis that the incidence of a bilateral response to the Tsui test would be higher with a multiport catheter, with all other characteristics of the test remaining unchanged. METHODS: We recruited laboring women requesting epidural analgesia. The epidural catheter placement was performed in a standard fashion, assisted by ultrasound, aiming at the L3-L4 interspace. Patients were randomly allocated for the placement of either a 19-G uniport or a 19-G multiport wire-reinforced catheter. The Tsui test (frequency 2 Hz; pulse width 0.2 millisecond) was performed immediately after securing the catheter (baseline) and at 5 minutes after a test dose with 3 mL lidocaine 2%. The current output was increased from zero until motor activity was detected up to a maximum of 20 mA. Subsequently, an initial loading dose of 10 mL bupivacaine 0.125% and 50 μg fentanyl was administered. The sensory block level to ice was assessed bilaterally at 20 minutes after injection of the loading dose. The primary outcome was the motor response pattern to the electric stimulation of the epidural catheter, either unilateral or bilateral; secondary outcomes included minimal current intensity needed to elicit a motor response at baseline and 5 minutes after the test dose, sensory block level and incidence of symmetrical sensory block at 20 minutes after injection of the loading dose, pain scores before the test dose and at 20 minutes after the loading dose, and need for catheter replacement within 2 hours of completion of the loading dose. RESULTS: Sixty-three women were assessed for eligibility and 46 were randomly allocated equally to each group. Three patients were excluded, resulting in 21 subjects in the multiport group and 22 subjects in the uniport group. Patient characteristics in both groups were similar. The incidence of unilateral motor response to the Tsui test was 95.2% (20/21) and 95.5% (21/22) in the multiport and uniport groups, respectively (rate difference 0.22%; 95% confidence interval, for the difference -29.2 to 29.2%; P = 0.99). The minimal current intensity (mean ± SD) required to produce a motor response at baseline was 5.4 ± 3.5 mA and 5.4 ± 4.1 mA in the multiport and uniport groups, respectively (P = 0.98). The sensory block levels to ice on the left and right, as well as pain scores at 20 minutes, were similar in both groups. No epidural catheters were resited. CONCLUSIONS: The Tsui test produced a high percentage of unilateral motor response in women with both uniport and multiport wire-embedded catheters. A larger study is necessary to confirm that there is no clinically significant difference in the motor response patterns between the 2 catheter types.

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)0.004
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: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Citations5
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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