Transmuscular quadratus lumborum versus lumbar plexus block for total hip arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Cadaveric studies have shown that injectate from transmuscular quadratus lumborum block (QLB) can spread to the lumbar plexus. Our aim was to compare analgesic efficacy of transmuscular QLB with lumbar plexus block (LPB) for patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Thirty patients receiving transmuscular QLB were propensity score matched with 30 patients receiving LPB for age, sex, ASA score, BMI, operative time, preoperative oxycodone, and intraoperative opioid use. The primary outcome was postoperative opioid consumption during the first 24 postoperative hours. Secondary outcomes included static pain scores at 0-12, 12-24, and 24-48 h intervals, opioid consumption at 0-12, 12-24, and 24-48 h intervals and the length of hospital stay. The incidence of severe adverse events was also compared. RESULTS: Opioid consumption (median [IQR]) in the first 24 h was similar between the transmuscular QLB and LPB patient groups-33.6 mg (22.9-48.5) versus 32.8 mg (24.8-58.3) intravenous morphine equivalents. There was no difference between groups in static pain scores or opioid consumption during any time interval up to 48 h postoperatively. Length of hospital stay (median [IQR]) was similar between the transmuscular QLB and LPB groups-55.6 h (53.7-60.3) versus 57.9 h (54.3-79.1). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that transmuscular QLB provides similar analgesia to LPB following THA. Prospective studies are needed to confirm this.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".