Erector spinae plane block in abdominal surgery: Case series
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study is to report 11 cases of erector spinae plane (ESP) block used for unilateral or bilateral abdominal surgery, adding to the overall limited experience with abdominal ESP block. The procedures were carried out at a teaching hospital in 11 patients (eight males, three females, ages 36-80 years) requiring abdominal surgery, including laparoscopic surgery. Each patient required surgery under different physical circumstances and likely different conceptions of what constituted pain. Two of the eleven patients were administered the ESP block and did not require general anaesthesia. Most of the patients with the ESP block maintained a numerical rating scale (NRS) for pain of 0-2/10 postoperatively. An occasional patient required paracetamol analgesia. There were no cases of opiate rescue. Obesity in a 46-year-old woman was believed to cause unclear ultrasonographic visualisation, interfering with entry of the ESP catheter. She, however, had no post-operative pain. She was given the usual intravenous metamizole 2 g for 10 h and required only analgesics at 16 h. ESP block, which produces analgesia by blocking trunk nerves, is an appropriate approach to patients requiring abdominal surgery, whether laparoscopic or open.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".