MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2744538141 · doi:10.2106/jbjs.16.01266

Ultrasound-Guided Motor-Sparing Knee Blocks for Postoperative Analgesia Following Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Randomized Blinded Study.

2017· article· en· W2744538141 on OpenAlexaff
Olawale A. Sogbein, Rakesh V. Sondekoppam, Dianne Bryant, D. Johnston, Edward M. Vasarhelyi, Steven J. MacDonald, Brent A. Lanting, Sugantha Ganapathy, James L. Howard

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAnesthesia and Pain Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaNOSM UniversityLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRopivacaineAdductor canalAnesthesiaKetorolacAnalgesicSurgeryInfiltration (HVAC)MorphineNerve blockTotal knee arthroplasty

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Pain following total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is often severe and can inhibit rehabilitation. Motor-sparing analgesic techniques such as periarticular infiltrations and adductor canal blocks have been popularized for knee analgesia since they preserve motor strength and permit early mobilization. Our primary objective was to compare the duration of analgesia from motor-sparing blocks with that of a standard periarticular infiltration. We used the time to first rescue analgesia as the end point. METHODS: We randomized 82 patients scheduled for elective TKA to receive either the preoperative motor-sparing block (0.5% ropivacaine, 2.5 μg/mL of epinephrine, 10 mg of morphine, and 30 mg of ketorolac) or intraoperative periarticular infiltration (0.3% ropivacaine, 2.5 μg/mL of epinephrine, 10 mg of morphine, and 30 mg of ketorolac). For the motor-sparing block, we modified the ultrasound-guided adductor canal block by combining it with a lateral femoral cutaneous nerve block and posterior knee infiltration. The patients, surgeons, anesthetists administering the blocks, and outcome assessors all remained blinded to group allocation. Our primary outcome was duration of analgesia (time to first rescue analgesia). Secondary outcomes included quadriceps strength, function, side effects, satisfaction, and length of hospital stay. RESULTS: The duration of analgesia was significantly longer (mean difference, 8.8 hours [95% confidence interval = 3.98 to 13.62], p < 0.01) for the motor-sparing-block group (mean [and standard error], 18.1 ± 1.7 hours) compared with the periarticular infiltration group (mean, 9.25 ± 1.7 hours). The infiltration group had significantly higher scores for pain at rest for the first 2 postoperative hours and for pain with knee movement at 2 and 4 hours. There were no significant differences between groups with regard to any other secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing a TKA, a motor-sparing block provides longer analgesia than periarticular infiltration with retention of quadriceps muscle strength, function, patient satisfaction, and a short hospital stay. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations53
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicAnesthesia and Pain ManagementFrench-language works237,207