Effectiveness of a paraverterbral nerve block versus local portal blocks for laparoscopic closure of the nephrosplenic space: A pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of a paravertebral nerve block vs local portal blocks for laparoscopic closure of the nephrosplenic space in standing sedated research horses. STUDY DESIGN: Randomized clinical trial. ANIMALS: or local blocks of the three laparoscopic portals. METHODS: Horses were sedated with dexmedetomidine (4 μg/kg IV and constant rate infusion [CRI] of 2.5 μg/kg/h) and morphine (50 μg/kg IV and CRI of 30 μg/kg/h). According to group allocation, 20 mL of either lidocaine or saline was injected into each paravertebral nerve site or into each local portal site to facilitate laparoscopy for closure of the nephrosplenic space. The overall quality of sedation, analgesia, behavior exhibited during surgery, and ease to perform the surgery were blindly scored by using a visual analog scale (VAS). RESULTS: Time to complete local anesthesia was similar for both blocks, and there was no difference in VAS scores between groups. Total duration of surgery was also similar between the paravertebral (79 ± 16 min) and local portal blocks (85 ± 25 min) groups. CONCLUSION: The paravertebral nerve block and the local portal blocks provided similar conditions during surgery and can be used interchangeably for closure of the nephrosplenic space. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The paravertebral nerve block can be readily performed and may be useful in surgical procedures.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".