The effect of erector spinae plane block on respiratory and analgesic outcomes in multiple rib fractures: a retrospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Regional anaesthesia is often helpful in improving respiratory function and analgesia following multiple rib fractures. The erector spinae plane block has become the technique of choice in our institution due to its relative simplicity and purported safety. The aim of this retrospective cohort study was to determine its effectiveness in improving respiratory and analgesic outcomes. We reviewed electronic medical records of patients with traumatic rib fractures admitted to a level-one trauma centre between January 2016 and July 2017, who also received erector spinae plane blocks. We analysed the following outcomes before and up to 72 h after erector spinae plane blockade: incentive spirometry volume; maximum numerical rating scale static pain scores; and 12-h opioid consumption. Pre- and post-block data were compared. We included 79 patients, 77% of whom received continuous erector spinae plane block for a mean (SD) of 3.7 (1.9) days. The majority (85%) had other associated injuries. Incentive spirometry volumes improved from 784 (694) to 1375 (667) ml (p < 0.01) during the first 24 h following erector spinae plane blockade. Pain scores were reduced from 7.7 (2.5) to 4.7 (3.2) in the first three hours (p < 0.01). Reductions in opioid consumption were observed but did not achieve statistical significance. These improvements were largely sustained for up to 72 h. Mean arterial blood pressure remained unchanged from baseline. In conclusion, erector spinae plane blocks were associated with improved inspiratory capacity and analgesic outcomes following rib fracture, without haemodynamic instability. We propose that it should be considered to be a viable alternative to other regional analgesic techniques when these are not feasible.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".