Effect of Dexamethasone in Peripheral Nerve Blocks on Recovery of Nerve Function
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Peripheral nerve blocks (PNBs) have revolutionized distal extremity surgery reducing pain and improving hospital efficiency. Perineural dexamethasone has been administered with PNBs to prolong their effects, although the safety of dexamethasone has not been established in the literature. This study aimed to determine if the addition of dexamethasone affected the postoperative neurological sensory status for foot and ankle surgeries and the recovery of nerve injuries. We hypothesized that the rate of persistent nerve injury would be higher in the dexamethasone group. METHODS: This is a retrospective observational cohort study of prospectively collected data of all patients from a single foot and ankle surgeon's practice. Perineural dexamethasone was routinely used as an adjunct by the regional anesthesia group until a clinical trend of increased paresthesia was found on short-term follow-up, which led to the discontinuation of its use. In this study, the cohort that received dexamethasone with ropivacaine was compared with the cohort that received ropivacaine alone. The primary outcome was a separate sensory nerve status sheet that was completed for every distal nerve territory for every patient at their follow-up visits at 2 weeks, 6 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months. Univariate analysis and a logistic regression model were used to determine the association between dexamethasone and delayed nerve recovery. A total of 250 patients were included in the study, with 117 patients in the dexamethasone group and 133 in the ropivacaine-only group. RESULTS: = .006). CONCLUSION: Perineural dexamethasone added to PNBs may be associated with delayed nerve recovery after foot and ankle surgery. It may be prudent to avoid its use until its full safety profile is established in larger prospective trials. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective comparative study.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".