Efeito da inclinação da mesa e flexão da coluna sobre a janela acústica da coluna lombar em mulheres grávidas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
O objetivo deste estudo foi avaliar se a inclinação lateral da mesa cirúrgica e a rotação do corpo de uma parturiente sentada para anestesia neuraxial aumentou o tamanho da área-alvo paramediana para a inserção da agulha neuraxial. Sala de parto. Trinta grávidas a termo, ASA I‐II, agendadas para cesárea eletiva. Ultrassonografia lombar foi feita em quatro posições sentadas: (F) flexão lombar; (FR) como na posição F com rotação do ombro direito; (FT) como na posição F com inclinação lateral da mesa cirúrgica; (FTR) como na posição F com inclinação lateral da mesa cirúrgica combinada com a rotação do ombro direito. Para cada posição, o tamanho da “área‐alvo”, definido como o comprimento visível do ligamento longitudinal posterior, foi medido no interespaço de L3‐L4. As médias do ligamento longitudinal posterior foram: 18,4 ± 4 mm na posição F; 18,9 ± 5,5 mm na posição FR; 19 ± 5,3 mm na posição FT e 18 ± 5,2 mm na posição FTR. O comprimento médio do ligamento longitudinal posterior não foi significativamente diferente nas quatro posições. Esses dados mostram que as posições avaliadas não aumentaram a área‐alvo, conforme definido pelo comprimento do ligamento longitudinal posterior com o objetivo de inserção da agulha neuraxial em pacientes obstétricas. As manobras avaliadas terão um uso limitado na melhoria do acesso à agulha espinhal em mulheres grávidas. The purpose of this study was to assess whether application of dorsal table tilt and body rotation to a parturient seated for neuraxial anesthesia increased the size of the paramedian target area for neuraxial needle insertion. Labor and Delivery Room. Thirty term pregnant women, ASA I–II, scheduled for an elective C‐section delivery. Lumbar ultrasonography was performed in four seated positions: (F) lumbar flexion; (FR) as in position F with right shoulder rotation; (FT) as in position F with dorsal table‐tilt; (FTR) as in position F with dorsal table‐tilt combined with right shoulder rotation. For each position, the size of the ‘target area’, defined as the visible length of the posterior longitudinal ligament was measured at the L3‐L4 interspace. The mean posterior longitudinal ligament was 18.4 ± 4 mm in position F, 18.9 ± 5.5 mm in FR, 19 ± 5.3 mm in FT, and 18 ± 5.2 mm in FTR. Mean posterior longitudinal ligament length was not significantly different in the four positions. These data show that the positions studied did not increase the target area as defined by the length of the posterior longitudinal ligament for the purpose of neuraxial needle insertion in obstetric patients. The maneuvers studied will have limited use in improving spinal needle access in pregnant women.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".