A Comparison of Combined Suprascapular and Axillary Nerve Blocks to Interscalene Nerve Block for Analgesia in Arthroscopic Shoulder Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this study was to compare the analgesic efficacy of combined suprascapular and axillary nerve block (SSAX) with interscalene block (ISB) after arthroscopic shoulder surgery. Our hypothesis was that ultrasound-guided SSAX would provide postoperative analgesia equivalent to ISB. METHODS: Sixty adult patients undergoing arthroscopic shoulder surgery received either SSAX or ISB prior to general anesthesia, in a randomized fashion. Pain scores, satisfaction, and adverse effects were recorded in the recovery room, 6 hours, 24 hours, and 7 days after surgery. RESULTS: Combined suprascapular and axillary nerve block provided nonequivalent analgesia when compared with ISB at different time points postoperatively, except on postoperative day 7. Interscalene block had better mean static pain score in the recovery room (ISB 1.80 [95% confidence interval [CI], 1.10-2.50] vs SSAX 5.45 [95% CI, 4.40-6.49; P < 0.001]). At 24 hours, SSAX had better mean static pain score (ISB 6.35 [95% CI, 5.16-7.54] vs SSAX 3.92 [95% CI, 2.52-5.31]; P = 0.01) with similar satisfaction between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Combined suprascapular and axillary nerve block provides nonequivalent analgesia compared with ISB after arthroscopic shoulder surgery. While SSAX provides better quality pain relief at rest and fewer adverse effects at 24 hours, ISB provides better analgesia in the immediate postoperative period. For arthroscopic shoulder surgery, SSAX can be a clinically acceptable analgesic option with different analgesic profile compared with ISB.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".