Comparing low volume saphenous-obturator block with placebo and femoral-obturator block for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACL-RC) is often associated with moderate to severe postoperative pain even with a multimodal analgesic regimen. We aimed to compare the analgesic efficacy of low volume saphenous-obturator block with placebo and femoral-obturator block in patients undergoing ACL-RC. METHODS: In a randomized controlled trial eighty-two patients undergoing ACL-RC with hamstring autograft were allocated to either low volume saphenous-obturator block, placebo block or femoral-obturator block. Ropivacaine 0.75% was used for active blocks and saline for placebo. Primary outcome was pain-scores at rest quantified as area-under-the-curve 0-6 hr postoperatively. Secondary outcomes were postoperative opioid consumption and pain localization in the knee. RESULTS: No statistical difference existed between groups in area-under-the-curve 6 hr pain-scores. However, pain-scores were significantly lower in the two ropivacaine groups compared to placebo at emergence t=0 (P<0.018), at t=5 (P<0.042) and at t=6 hours (P<0.002) postoperatively. Furthermore, ropivacaine blocks exhibited significantly reduced total opioid consumption (15.81 and 18.44 mg) postoperatively compared with placebo (26.38 mg) (P<0.018). Patients receiving ropivacaine blocks localized pain in the posterolateral knee, whereas placebo block patients reported anteromedial and central pain. Other secondary outcomes were similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Low volume saphenous-obturator block is significantly more effective than placebo in reducing both early and late pain-scores as well as postoperative opioid consumption in patients undergoing ACL-RC. No statistical difference existed when comparing low volume saphenous-obturator block to femoral-obturator block regarding early and late pain-scores and postoperative opioid consumption.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".