National Multidisciplinary Survey of Regional Anesthesia Preferences in Breast Reconstruction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The purpose of this work was to determine the regional anesthesia preferences of plastic surgeons (PS) and anesthesiologists (A) involved in breast reconstruction in Canada. Methods: Online surveys were sent to members of the Canadian Society of Plastic Surgeons (CSPS) and the Canadian Anesthesiologists Society (CAS). The primary outcome was regional anesthesia preferences in breast reconstruction (delayed, immediate, alloplastic, autologous). Secondary outcomes included the availability and the influence of specialty and academic status on preferences. Statistical analysis used descriptive statistics and Pearson χ 2 test. Results: Responses from CSPS and CAS totaled 141 (response rate = 30%) and 217 (response rate = 14%), respectively. Compared with non-academic centres (NAC), academic centres (AC) had significantly greater access to (AC = 60%, NAC = 39%, P = .001) and preferred to use regional anesthesia more often (AC = 36%, NAC = 10%, P < .001). The following proportions of physicians preferred to use regional anesthesia: 40% (PS = 32%, A = 44%, P = .081) for immediate alloplastic reconstruction, 23% (PS = 24%, A = 22%, P = .821) for delayed alloplastic reconstruction, 34% (PS = 18%, A = 41%, P < .001) for immediate autologous reconstruction, and 19% (PS = 13%, A = 21%, P = .195) for delayed autologous reconstruction. Regional anesthesia preferences were significantly different between plastic surgeons and anesthesiologists ( P < .001)—anesthesiologists favoured paravertebral blocks for all reconstructions, while plastic surgeons favoured pectoral nerve blocks for immediate alloplastic reconstruction and intercostal nerve blocks for all other reconstructions. Conclusions: Plastic surgeons and anesthesiologists prefer not to use regional anesthesia in the majority breast reconstructions. Among those who deploy regional anesthesia, plastic surgeons and anesthesiologist have divergent preferences with respect to modality. There is a need for a prospective study comparing paravertebral blocks and intercostal nerve blocks.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".