Determination of ED50 and ED95 of 0.5% Ropivacaine in Adductor Canal Block to Produce Quadriceps Weakness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Adductor canal block (ACB) is popular for knee analgesia because of its favorable effect on quadriceps strength. The aim of this study was to find the minimum volume of local anesthetic, which can be injected into the ACB that would result in quadriceps weakness. METHODS: This nonrandomized study used an up-and-down sequential allocation design. Twenty-six patients scheduled to undergo arthroscopic knee surgery received an ultrasound-guided ACB preoperatively. The initial volume of ropivacaine 0.5% injected was 30 mL, which was subsequently increased or decreased by 2 mL, depending on whether the previous subject had a 30% reduction in quadriceps function. The minimum effective volume in 50% of patients was determined using Dixon-Massey up-and-down method. The effective volume in 95% of patients was then calculated using probit transformation. RESULTS: The ED50 (minimum effective anesthetic volume in 50% of the subjects) needed for a 30% decrease in quadriceps power was 46.5 mL (95% confidence interval, 45.01-50.43 mL), and estimated ED95 (minimum effective anesthetic volume in 95% of the subjects) was 50.32 mL (95% confidence interval, 48.66-67.26 mL). The local anesthetic volume injected correlated with degree of quadriceps weakness at 20 minutes postblock (P < 0.001) and in the postanesthesia recovery unit (P = 0.032). CONCLUSIONS: Significant quadriceps weakness is unlikely when clinically representative volumes of 0.5% ropivacaine is used for ACB performed using sonographic landmarks. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT02541552.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".