Faculty Opinions recommendation of Bacterial colonization after tunneling in 402 perineural catheters: a prospective study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Bacterial colonization of peripheral nerve catheters is frequent, although infection is relatively rare. With central venous catheters, the tunneling of the catheter into the subcutaneous tissue significantly decreases catheter colonization and catheter-related sepsis. We evaluated the incidence of bacterial colonization in adult patients with tunnelized perineural nerve catheters.METHODS: Peripheral nerve catheters placed under sterile conditions for postoperative analgesia were evaluated prospectively. After removal, they were analyzed for colonization. Quantitative culture was used as described by Brun-Buisson for intravascular catheters. The site of insertion was monitored daily for any signs of infection.RESULTS: Four-hundred-two patients were included in the study during a 2-yr period. The mean duration of peripheral nerve catheters was 48 h (47-50.4). Positive culture occurred in 25 catheters, indicating that the incidence of colonization was 6.22% (3.8-8.5). The microbiological analysis of the catheter tip cultures revealed coagulase-negative staphylococci in 72%. Twenty-two catheters of 25 catheters each had one microorganism, and for three catheters, two microorganisms were identified. No infection was found in any patient.CONCLUSION: The incidence of perineural catheter colonization is low with subcutaneous tunneling. Controlled randomized studies are warranted to determine whether this procedure decreases the risk for infection. PMID: 19299807
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 | 0.001 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.005 |
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".