MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2794828692 · doi:10.1213/ane.0000000000002854

Evidence Basis for Regional Anesthesia in Ambulatory Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Part I—Femoral Nerve Block

2018· review· en· W2794828692 on OpenAlexaff
Leon Vorobeichik, Richard Brull, Girish P. Joshi, Faraj W. Abdallah

Bibliographic record

VenueAnesthesia & Analgesia · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAnesthesia and Pain Management
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of OttawaSt. Michael's HospitalWomen's College HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAnalgesicAmbulatoryRandomized controlled trialAnesthesiaAnterior cruciate ligament reconstructionRegimenTramadolPostoperative nausea and vomitingNauseaOpioidAdductor canalAnterior cruciate ligamentPhysical therapySurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The optimal management of pain after ambulatory anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is unclear. Femoral nerve block (FNB) is purported to enhance postoperative analgesia, but its effectiveness in the setting of modern multimodal analgesia is unclear. This systematic review examines the effect of adding FNB to multimodal analgesia on analgesic outcomes after ACLR, whether or not the analgesic regimen used included local instillation analgesia (LIA). We retrieved randomized controlled trials evaluating the effects of adding FNB to multimodal analgesia on analgesic outcomes after ACLR, compared to multimodal analgesia alone (control). We designated postoperative opioid consumption at 24 hours as our primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included postoperative opioid consumption at 24-48 hours, rest, and dynamic pain severity between 0 and 48 hours, time to analgesic request, postanesthesia care unit and hospital stay durations, patient satisfaction, postoperative nausea and vomiting, functional outcomes, and long-term (>1 month) quadriceps strength. Eight randomized controlled trials (716 patients) were identified. Five trials compared FNB administration to control, and another 3 compared the combination of FNB and LIA to LIA alone. Compared to control, adding FNB resulted in modest reductions in 24-hour opioid consumption in 2 of 3 trials, and improvements in rest pain at 1 hour in 1 trial and up to 24 hours in another. In contrast, the combination of FNB and LIA, compared to LIA alone, did not reduce opioid consumption in any of the trials, but it did improve pain scores at 20 minutes only in 1 trial. The effect of FNB on long-term quadriceps strength or function after ACLR was not evaluated in the reviewed trials. Contemporary evidence suggests that the benefits of adding FNB to multimodal analgesia for ACLR are modest and conflicting, but there is no incremental analgesic benefit if the multimodal analgesic regimen included LIA. Our findings do not support the routine use of FNB for analgesia in patients having ACLR.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.047
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.047
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.010
Bibliometrics0.0060.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.096
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations30
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnesthesia & AnalgesiaSame topicAnesthesia and Pain ManagementFrench-language works237,207