Waveform analysis for lumbar epidural needle placement in labour
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Epidural analgesia is highly effective for labour pain relief, but can be challenging to perform in labouring patients 1. The ability to transduce a pulsatile pressure waveform from epidural needles in non-pregnant patients correlates with successful epidural blockade 2-7. We have evaluated the feasibility of transducing an epidural waveform in labouring women. With ethics board approval and written informed consent, we studied ten term labouring patients requesting epidural labour analgesia, prospectively. After epidural needle placement at the L3-4 interspace using a loss-of-resistance to saline technique, a standard pressure monitoring system (TruWaveTM Pressure Monitoring Set; Edwards Lifesciences LLC, Irvine, CA, USA) was connected to the 17G Tuohy needle (CHS®, Oakville, ON, Canada) and then to a standard 20G polyurethane epidural catheter (Portex®, Smiths Medical ASD Inc., Keene, NH, USA) during and between contractions. Pressure values were recorded via 10-s videos taken from a portable monitor and analysed offline by a blinded investigator. A test dose (3 ml of lidocaine 2% with adrenaline 1:200,000) and epidural top-up (10 ml of bupivacaine 0.125%) were administered. Thirty minutes later, all patients had an adequate bilateral block, confirming that the epidural catheter was correctly positioned. No epidural pressure waveforms were observed in our study. Compared to non-pregnant participants in previous (thoracic) epidural pressure waveform studies, we attribute our findings to anatomical and physiological differences in the lumbar epidural space of parturients, with weaker arterial pulsation 8, increased tissue compliance 9 and increased epidural pressures 10. We conclude from our small pilot study that lumbar epidural pressure waveform analysis is not feasible in parturients.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".