Lumbar Sympathetic Plexus Block as a Treatment for Postamputation Pain: Methodology for a Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: We present a technical protocol for rigorous assessment of patient-reported outcomes and psychophysical testing relevant to lumbar sympathetic blocks for the treatment of postamputation pain (PAP). This description is intended to inform future prospective investigation. Design: Series of four participants from a blinded randomized sham-controlled trial. Setting: Tertiary, urban, academic pain medicine center. Subjects: Four participants with a single lower limb amputation and associated chronic PAP. Methods: Participants were randomized to receive a lumbar sympathetic block with 0.25% bupivacaine or sham needle placement. Patient-rated outcome measures included the numerical rating scale (NRS) for pain, the McGill Pain Questionnaire-Short Form, Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale, Pain and Anxiety Symptoms Scale-short version, and Pain Disability Index (PDI). Psychophysical and biometric testing was also performed, which included vibration sensation testing, pinprick sensation testing, brush sensation testing, Von Frey repeated weighted pinprick sensation, and thermal quantitative sensory testing. Results: In the four described cases, treatment of PAP with a single lumbar sympathetic block but not sham intervention resulted in reduction of both residual limb pain and phantom limb pain as well as perceived disability on the PDI at three-month follow-up. Conclusions: An appropriately powered randomized controlled study using this methodology may not only aid in determining the possible clinical efficacy of lumbar sympathetic block in PAP, but could also improve our understanding of underlying pathophysiologic mechanisms of PAP.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.021 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".