A randomized comparison between neurostimulation and ultrasound-guided lateral femoral cutaneous nerve block.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This prospective, randomized trial compared neurostimulation (NS) and ultrasound (US) guided lateral femoral cutaneous nerve (LFCN) block. We hypothesized that US would result in a shorter total anesthesia-related time (sum of performance and onset times). METHODS: Twenty-one volunteers were enrolled. The right lower limb was randomized to an NS- or US-guided LFCN block. The alternate technique was employed for the left lower limb. With NS, paresthesias were sought in the lateral thigh at a stimulatory threshold of 0.6 mA (pulse width=0.3 ms; frequency=2 Hz) or lower. With US, local anesthetic was deposited under the inguinal ligament, ventral to the iliopsoas muscle. In both groups, 5 mL of lidocaine 2% were used to anesthetize the nerve. During the procedure of the block, the performance time and number of needle passes were recorded. Subsequently, a blinded observer assessed sensory block in the lateral thigh every minute until 20 minutes. Success was defined as loss of pinprick sensation at a point midway between the anterior superior iliac spine and the lateral knee line. The blinded observer also assessed the areas of sensory block in the anterior, medial, lateral, and posterior aspects of the thigh and mapped this distribution onto a corresponding grid. RESULTS: Both modalities provided comparable success rates (76.2%-95.2%), performance times (162.1 to 231.3 seconds), onset times (300.0 to 307.5 seconds) and total anesthesia related-times (480.1 to 554.0 seconds). However US required fewer needle passes (3.2±2.9 vs 9.5±12.2; P=.009). There were no intergroup differences in terms of the distribution of the anesthetized cutaneous areas. However considerable variability was encountered between individuals and between the 2 sides of a same subject. The most common areas of sensory loss included the central lateral two-eighths anteriorly and the central antero-inferior three-eighths laterally. CONCLUSION: Ultrasound guidance and NS provide similar success rates and total anesthesia-related times for LFCN block. The territory of the LFCN displays wide inter- and intra-individual variability.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.011 | 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".