Paravertebral brachial plexus blockade in cats: a cadaver study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives The aims of this study were to describe the paravertebral brachial plexus (PBP) blockade in cats, and compare the spread of bupivacaine–methylene blue solution (BMS) using two volumes of injection into the PBP. Methods Six cadavers (4.4 ± 1.8 kg) randomly received 0.15 ml/kg (LOW) or 0.2 ml/kg (HIGH) per injection of BMS into the PBP. The first injection was made ventral to the transverse process of the sixth cervical vertebra (nerves C6 and C7) at the emergence of nerve roots. A second injection was performed at the edge of the cranial border of the scapula and directed ventrally towards the first rib (C8 and T1). Cadavers were dissected and the presence of BMS in contact with the nerves (success rate) and length of staining were evaluated for each nerve (C6/C7/C8/T1). Length of target nerves in contact with BMS was measured and <15 mm was considered fair, ⩾15 mm sufficient and >40 mm excessive. Complications (aspiration of blood, staining of pleural space and/or spinal cord) were recorded. Paired t -test, Mann-Whitney U-test and χ 2 test were used for statistical analysis when appropriate ( P <0.05). Results Eleven hemilateral brachial plexuses were injected. Aspiration of blood occurred during one injection. Inadvertent pleural or spinal staining was not observed. Success rates (positive nerve staining) in the LOW and HIGH groups, respectively, were as follows: C6: 83% and 80%; C7: 66% and 100%; C8: 66% and 100%; T1: 50% and 60% ( P >0.05). Median (range) length of nerve staining was 22 mm (15–39 mm) for LOW and 21 mm (13–35 mm) for HIGH ( P >0.05). Excessive nerve staining was not recorded. Conclusions and relevance This study describes the PBP blockade in cats with acceptable nerve staining and minimal complications. Success rate and length of nerve staining were not significantly different between the LOW and HIGH groups.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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; 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".