The Erector Spinae Plane Block Provides Visceral Abdominal Analgesia in Bariatric Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Postoperative pain after bariatric surgery can be significant and yet difficult to manage. These patients frequently have associated obstructive sleep apnea and are at risk of respiratory depression with opioid analgesia. Abdominal wall blocks such as the subcostal transversus abdominis plane block are not of significant benefit, probably in part because they provide only somatic analgesia. The ultrasound-guided erector spinae plane (ESP) block is a recently described regional anesthetic technique for providing thoracic analgesia when performed at the level of the T5 transverse process. Local anesthetic injected into the fascial plane deep to the erector spinae muscle spreads in a craniocaudal fashion over several levels. Local anesthetic also penetrates anteriorly through the intertransverse connective tissue and enters the thoracic paravertebral space where it can potentially block not only the ventral and dorsal rami of spinal nerves but also the rami communicantes that transmit sympathetic fibers. Coupled with the fact that the erector spinae muscle and ESP extend down to the lumbar spine, this suggests that the ESP block could result in both visceral and somatic abdominal analgesia if the injection were performed at a lower thoracic level. We describe a series of 3 cases that illustrate the efficacy of bilateral ESP blocks performed at the level of the T7 transverse process for relieving visceral abdominal pain following bariatric surgery. Further investigation is recommended to establish the potential of the ESP block as an analgesic modality in abdominal surgery.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".