Comparison of effectiveness and safety between epidural anesthesia vs local anesthesia for percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness and safety of epidural anesthesia (EA) with those of local anesthesia (LA) for percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy (PTED) and provide reference data for clinical decision-making. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane library, Web of Science, Medline, ScienceDirect, and the China National Knowledge Infrastructure from inception to June 2019 in order to identify randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials comparing EA and LA for PTED. Studies assessing at least 2 of the following indicators were eligible: surgical duration, X-ray exposure time, satisfaction rate, visual analog scale (VAS) scores for pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and complications. Two assessors evaluated the quality of the literature using the Cochrane Handbook or Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Meta-analysis was conducted using Review Manager 5.3.3 software. RESULTS: Four randomized controlled trials and 4 retrospective cohort studies involving a total of 1000 patients were included. The LA and EA groups included 473 and 527 patients, respectively. Meta-analysis revealed significant intergroup differences in the intraoperative (P < .00001) and postoperative (P < .00001) lumbar VAS scores, intraoperative (P < .00001) and postoperative (P = .001) leg VAS scores, and anesthesia satisfaction rate (P < .00001), with EA being superior to LA in all aspects. There were no significant intergroup differences in the surgical duration, X-ray exposure time, postoperative ODI, and complication rate. CONCLUSION: EA is as safe as LA and produces better anesthetic effects than does LA in patients undergoing PTED. Therefore, it should be promoted as a reliable anesthetic technique for PTED.
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 | 0.015 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".