Advances in regional anaesthesia and acute pain management: a narrative review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Regional anaesthesia has undergone several exciting advances in the past few decades. Ultrasound-guided techniques of peripheral nerve blockade have become the gold standard thanks to the associated improvements in efficacy, ease of performance and safety. This has increased the accessibility and utilisation of regional anaesthesia in the anaesthesia community at large and is timely given the mounting evidence for its potential benefits on various patient-centred outcomes, including major morbidity, cancer recurrence and persistent postoperative pain. Ultrasound guidance has also paved the way for refinement of the technical performance of existing blocks concerning simplicity and safety, as well as the development of new regional anaesthesia techniques. In particular, the emergence of fascial plane blocks has further broadened the application of regional anaesthesia in the management of painful conditions of the thorax and abdomen. The preliminary results of investigations into these fascial plane blocks are promising but require further research to establish their true value and role in clinical care. One of the challenges that remains is how best to prolong regional anaesthesia to maximise its benefits while avoiding undue harm. There is ongoing research into optimising continuous catheter techniques and their management, intravenous and perineural pharmacological adjuncts, and sustained-release local anaesthetic molecules. Finally, there is a growing appreciation for the critical role that regional anaesthesia can play in an overall multimodal anaesthetic strategy. This is especially pertinent given the current focus on eliminating unnecessary peri-operative opioid administration.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".