Bilateral brachial plexus block in a patient with cervical spinal cord injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: Bilateral brachial plexus block (BPB) generally requires a relatively large dose of local anesthetic for a successful block, resulting in a high risk of local anesthetic systemic toxicity. It can also result in inadvertent bilateral phrenic nerve palsy, leading to respiratory failure. Hence, it has not been widely used. However, it can be performed in selected patients. In this report, we present a case of ultrasound-guided BPB for bilateral upper extremity surgery in a patient with cervical spinal cord injury (SCI). PATIENT CONCERNS: A 25-year-old woman with SCI secondary to traumatic fifth cervical spine fracture scheduled for surgical treatment of bilateral elbow fracture received bilateral BPB. DIAGNOSES: Due to the complications of SCI, the patient had incomplete sensory loss, loss of motor function, and complete diaphragmatic paralysis on the right side. INTERVENTIONS: Right infraclavicular and left axillary BPB was performed as the sole anesthetic procedure for bilateral upper extremity surgery. OUTCOMES: Bilateral BPB was successful for bilateral upper extremity surgery. The surgery was uneventful and without further complications. LESSONS: Patients with cervical SCI have a high risk of respiratory complications. Bilateral BPB can be a suitable option for bilateral upper extremity surgery in selected patients. It is imperative to select an appropriate anesthetic technique that preserves respiratory function to minimize the potential risk of respiratory complications.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 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".