MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2412162784 · doi:10.1177/0310057x1204000321

Perineural Entrapment of an Interscalene Stimulating Catheter

2012· article· en· W2412162784 on OpenAlexaff
Sanjib Das Adhikary, Kevin Armstrong, Ki Jinn Chin

Bibliographic record

VenueAnaesthesia and Intensive Care · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAnesthesia and Pain Management
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBrachial plexusCatheterSurgeryAnesthesiaRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A patient undergoing elective total shoulder arthroplasty had an Arrow Stimucath™ (Arrow International Reading, PA, USA) stimulating catheter inserted in the region of the interscalene brachial plexus using an ultrasound-guided in-plane approach. There was subsequent difficulty in removing the catheter and traction was associated with painful paraesthesia in the patient's thumb. Plain X-ray revealed a hook-shaped deformity of the tip and surgical exploration was required to remove the catheter, the tip of which appeared to be trapped within the sheath of the brachial plexus. We speculate that the mechanism for entrapment in this case was deformation of the catheter tip into a hook-like shape. The subsequent catheter-neural interaction prevented asymptomatic removal. We recommend that removal of peripheral nerve catheters be attempted only after resolution of sensory block so as to enable patients to report pain or paraesthesia. Imaging with ultrasound or X-rays may help ascertain catheter tip location and confirm whether deformity is present. We also recommend a low threshold for proceeding to surgical extraction, particularly if neurological symptoms are present.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations23
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnaesthesia and Intensive CareSame topicAnesthesia and Pain ManagementFrench-language works237,207