MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3125121112 · doi:10.1213/ane.0000000000005373

Comparison of the Analgesic Duration of 0.5% Bupivacaine With 1:200,000 Epinephrine Versus 0.5% Ropivacaine Versus 1% Ropivacaine for Low-Volume Ultrasound-Guided Interscalene Brachial Plexus Block: A Randomized Controlled Trial

2021· article· en· W3125121112 on OpenAlexaff
Ben Safa, Brendan P. Flynn, Paul McHardy, Alex Kiss, Lynn Haslam‐Larmer, Patrick Henry, Lilia Kaustov, Stephen Choi

Bibliographic record

VenueAnesthesia & Analgesia · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAnesthesia and Pain Management
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRopivacaineMedicineBupivacaineAnesthesiaAnalgesicLocal anestheticRandomized controlled trialBrachial plexusEpinephrineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Bupivacaine and ropivacaine are the preferred long-acting local anesthetics for peripheral nerve blocks as they provide prolonged analgesia in the postoperative period. No studies have directly compared the analgesic duration of these commonly used local anesthetics in the setting of low-volume ultrasound-guided interscalene block (US-ISB). This study was designed to determine which local anesthetic and concentration provides superior analgesia (duration and quality) for low-volume US-ISB. METHODS: Sixty eligible patients scheduled for arthroscopic shoulder surgery were randomized (1:1:1) to receive US-ISB (5 mL) with 0.5% bupivacaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine, 0.5% ropivacaine, or 1% ropivacaine. All individuals were blinded including study participants, anesthesiologists, surgeons, research personnel, and statistician. All participants received a standardized general anesthetic and multimodal analgesia. The primary outcome was duration of analgesia defined as the time from the end of injection to the time that the patients reported a significant increase in pain (>3 numeric rating scale [NRS]) at the surgical site. RESULTS: The mean duration of analgesia for 0.5% bupivacaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine, 0.5% ropivacaine, or 1% ropivacaine was 14.1 ± 7.4, 13.8 ± 4.5, and 15.8 ± 6.3 hours, respectively (analysis of variance [ANOVA], P = .51). There were no observed differences in analgesic duration or other secondary outcomes between the 3 groups with the exception of a difference in cumulative opioid consumption up to 20h00 on the day of surgery in favor of ropivacaine 0.5% over bupivacaine of minimal clinical significance. CONCLUSIONS: In the context of single-injection low-volume US-ISB, we have demonstrated a similar efficacy between equal concentrations of ropivacaine and bupivacaine. In addition, increasing the concentration of ropivacaine from 0.5% to 1% did not prolong the duration of US-ISB.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.275 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations21
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnesthesia & AnalgesiaSame topicAnesthesia and Pain ManagementFrench-language works237,207