The erector spinae plane block for obstetric analgesia: a case series of a novel technique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The management of pain during labour is central to obstetric anaesthetic practice. While epidural analgesia has long been considered the gold standard for intrapartum analgesia, neuraxial techniques can be challenging to perform, are contra-indicated in circumstances such as coagulopathy. The erector spinae plane block is an interfascial plane block that has generated interest because of a needle tip position away from the neuraxis. This has the potential to mitigate the risks of nerve injury and epidural haematoma formation. The mechanism of action is linked to both paravertebral and epidural distribution of local anaesthetic, providing both somatic and visceral analgesia, with potential utility in obstetric settings. Four women in active labour received either unilateral or bilateral erector spinae plane blocks. All experienced a reduction in pain, ranging from 3 to 6 points measured on a 10-point numerical rating scale. The duration of analgesia ranged from 60 to 120 min. In this report, we discuss potential for using the erector spinae plane block in the management of obstetric pain.
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) | 0.000 | 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".