Safety and efficacy of ilioinguinal and iliohypogastric nerve blocks for treatment of pelvic pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To assess the safety and efficacy of ilioinguinal/iliohypogastric nerve blocks for patients with lower abdominal wall pain in a gynaecology setting. Methods: A retrospective chart review of 131 patients who received ilioinguinal/iliohypogastric nerve blocks at a tertiary referral centre for pelvic pain between 1 January 2012 and 13 July 2017 was performed. Patient demographics, history, examination findings and block data were extracted. Chi-square and Mann–Whitney U tests explored differences in patient characteristics between patients with and without effective response to their initial ilioinguinal/iliohypogastric nerve block. Results: A total of 465 ilioinguinal/iliohypogastric nerve blocks were performed among patients. The effect of the initial block was available for 99 out of 131 patients. Of these patients, 70% (n = 69) reported a great improvement in pain, 9% (n = 9) some improvement in pain, 18% (n = 18) no response and 3% (n = 3) worsening of pain. A significantly greater number of patients who were not responsive to their first block reported unilateral pain (p = 0.040) and had a history of vulvodynia (p = 0.038) when compared to patients who were responsive to their first block. Seven patients (5%) reported minor adverse events related to blocks. Conclusion: Ilioinguinal/iliohypogastric nerve blocks provide pain relief for those with pelvic pain localized to the lower abdominal wall, with a low rate of minor adverse events.
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 | 0.008 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".