MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2770232268 · doi:10.1097/eja.0000000000000736

Ultrasound with neurostimulation compared with ultrasound guidance alone for lumbar plexus block

2017· article· en· W2770232268 on OpenAlexaff
Vanlapa Arnuntasupakul, Theerawat Chalachewa, Prangmalee Leurcharusmee, Worakamol Tiyaprasertkul, Roderick J. Finlayson, De Q.H. Tran

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Anaesthesiology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAnesthesia and Pain Management
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNeurostimulationLumbar plexusUltrasoundLumbarRadiologyStimulationInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Ultrasound-guided lumbar plexus blocks usually require confirmatory neurostimulation. A simpler alternative is to inject local anaesthetic inside the posteromedial quadrant of the psoas muscle under ultrasound guidance. OBJECTIVE: We hypothesised that both techniques would result in similar total anaesthesia time, defined as the sum of performance and onset time. DESIGN: A randomised, observer-blinded, equivalence trial. SETTING: Ramathibodi Hospital and Maharaj Nakorn Chiang Mai Hospital (Thailand) from 12 May 2016 to 10 January 2017. PATIENTS: A total of 110 patients undergoing total hip or knee arthroplasty, who required lumbar plexus block for postoperative analgesia. INTERVENTION: In the combined ultrasonography-neurostimulation group, quadriceps-evoked motor response was sought at a current between 0.2 and 0.8 mA prior to local anaesthetic injection (30 ml of lidocaine 1% and levobupivacaine 0.25% with epinephrine 5 μg ml and 5 mg of dexamethasone). In the ultrasound guidance alone group, local anaesthetic was simply injected inside the posteromedial quadrant of the psoas muscle. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: We measured the total anaesthesia time, the success rate (at 30 min), the number of needle passes, block-related pain, cumulative opioid consumption (at 24 h) and adverse events (vascular puncture, paraesthesia, local anaesthetic spread to the epidural space). The equivalence margin was 7.4 min. RESULTS: Compared with ultrasound guidance alone, combined ultrasonography-neurostimulation resulted in decreased mean (±SD) total anaesthesia time [15.3 (±6.5) vs. 20.1 (±9.0) min; mean difference, -4.8; 95% confidence interval, -8.1 to -1.9; P = 0.005] and mean (±SD) onset time [10.2 (±5.6) vs. 15.5 (±9.0) min; P = 0.004). No inter-group differences were observed in terms of success rate, performance time, number of needle passes, block-related pain, opioid consumption or adverse events. CONCLUSION: Although the ultrasonography-neurostimulation technique results in a shorter total anaesthesia time compared with ultrasound guidance alone, this difference falls within our accepted equivalence margin (±7.4 min). TRIAL REGISTRATION: www.clinicaltrials in the (Study ID: TCTR20160427003).

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 designNon-randomized 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

Citations17
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of AnaesthesiologySame topicAnesthesia and Pain ManagementFrench-language works237,207