Analgesic effect of perineural local anesthetics, steroids, and conventional medical management for trauma and compression-related peripheral neuropathic pain: a retrospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Trauma and compression are common causes of peripheral neuropathic pain (NP) refractory to conventional medical management (CMM). The role of perineural interventions in relieving this type of pain is unclear. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this retrospective study were to determine the analgesic benefits of adding a combination of perineural local anesthetic and steroids (LA-S) to CMM compared with CMM alone in patients who had moderate-to-severe refractory NP after trauma to the ankle and the foot. METHODS: Health care records of 60 patients in exposed (3 injections of perineural LA-S at weekly intervals with CMM) and 60 in unexposed (CMM) cohorts were reviewed. Data on patient characteristics, pain, and mental and physical function were extracted at baseline and at the postintervention follow-up. Data were analyzed to evaluate analgesic benefit from the study interventions and the impact of baseline characteristics. RESULTS: < 0.01). However, multivariable analysis did not show an independent beneficial analgesic effect with the addition of perineural LA-S to CMM compared with CMM alone. A greater severity of preintervention catastrophizing (each unit increase in pain catastrophizing score increased pain score at follow-up by 0.04, 95% confidence interval: 0.01-0.07) was associated with reduction in the analgesic benefit. CONCLUSION: Perineural local anesthetic and steroid injections do not confer an analgesic benefit for trauma- or compression-related peripheral NP.
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 | 0.009 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".