Postoperative Apnea in a Neonate Following an Epidural Bolus Dose Through a High Thoracic Epidural Catheter
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Regional anesthesia is being used more frequently in the practice of pediatric anesthesia including neonates and infants. While generally safe and effective, adverse effects may occur related to catheter placement or its subsequent use. We present the rare occurrence of high motor blockade with apnea following the administration of a bolus dose of the local anesthetic agent, 2-chloroprocaine, into the thoracic epidural catheter of a 4-week-old, 2.2-kg former premature neonate. The patient had an epidural catheter that had been threaded from the caudal space to the thoracic level to provide analgesia following an abdominal surgical procedure. Subsequent investigation with a standard chest radiograph revealed a higher than intended placement of the epidural catheter (T4 instead of T8-10) which resulted in a transient high motor blockade with apnea. The epidural infusion was discontinued and assisted ventilation was provided by bag-valve-mask ventilation. Immediately, the heart rate and oxygen saturation returned to baseline values, and within 5 min the patient became more active, spontaneous ventilation resumed, and a strong cry was noted. The epidural catheter was removed and the remainder of the postoperative course was unremarkable. Adverse effects of epidural anesthesia in neonates are discussed and options for identifying the correct placement of a thoracic epidural catheter are reviewed.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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 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".