Erector Spinae Plane Block Versus Retrolaminar Block
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The erector spinae plane (ESP) and retrolaminar blocks are ultrasound-guided techniques for thoracoabdominal wall analgesia involving injection into the musculofascial plane between the paraspinal back muscles and underlying thoracic vertebrae. The ESP block targets the tips of the transverse processes, whereas the retrolaminar block targets the laminae. We investigated if there were differences in injectate spread between the 2 techniques that would have implications for their clinical effect. METHODS: The blocks were performed in 3 fresh cadavers. The ESP and retrolaminar blocks were performed on opposite sides of each cadaver at the T5 vertebral level. Twenty milliliters of a radiocontrast dye mixture was injected in each block, and injectate spread was assessed by magnetic resonance imaging and anatomical dissection. RESULTS: Both blocks exhibited spread to the epidural and neural foraminal spaces over 2 to 5 levels. The ESP block produced additional spread to intercostal spaces over 5 to 9 levels and was associated with a greater extent of craniocaudal spread along the paraspinal muscles. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical effect of ESP and retrolaminar blocks can be explained by epidural and neural foraminal spread of local anesthetic. The ESP block produces additional intercostal spread, which may contribute to more extensive analgesia. The implications of these cadaveric observations require confirmation in clinical studies.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".