É seguro o uso de anestésico local com adrenalina na cirurgia da mão? Técnica WALANT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aprendemos que não deveríamos usar um anestésico local com adrenalina para procedimentos nas extremidades. Esse dogma é transmitido de geração em geração. Não questionávamos a sua veracidade ou a origem da dúvida. Em muitas situações não entendíamos o benefício do uso, pois muitas vezes pensávamos não ser necessário prolongar o efeito anestésico, já que os procedimentos eram, na sua maioria, de curta duração. Após a divulgação de estudos dos cirurgiões canadenses, passamos a entender que os benefícios se estendiam além do tempo de anestesia. A técnica WALANT permite um campo cirúrgico sem sangramento, possibilidade de troca de informações com o paciente durante o procedimento, redução de material de descarte, redução de custos e melhoria da segurança. Dessa forma, após passar pela fase inicial das dúvidas quanto ao uso dessa técnica, verificamos os seus benefícios e a satisfação dos pacientes em poderem retornar de imediato para casa após os procedimentos. In the past it was taught that local anesthetic should not be used with adrenaline for procedures in the extremities. This dogma is transmitted from generation to generation. Its truth has not been questioned, nor the source of the doubt. In many situations the benefit of use was not understood, because it was often thought that it was not necessary to prolong the anesthetic effect, since the procedures were mostly of short duration. After the disclosure of studies of Canadian surgeons, came to understand that the benefits went beyond the time of anesthesia. The WALANT technique allows a surgical field without bleeding, possibility of information exchange with the patient during the procedure, reduction of waste material, reduction of costs, and improvement of safety. Thus, after passing through the initial phase of the doubts in the use of this technique, the authors verified its benefits and the patients' satisfaction in being able to immediately return home after the procedures.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".