Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This article aims to summarize the current literature describing the application of erector spinae plane (ESP) blocks for regional anesthesia of upper and lower limbs and to discuss the advantages and limitations. RECENT FINDINGS: Investigations are still at an early stage but results are promising. High thoracic ESP blockade can relieve acute and chronic shoulder pain through local anesthetic diffusion to cervical nerve roots, although it may not be as effective as direct local anesthetic injection around the brachial plexus. It does, however, preserve motor and phrenic nerve function to a greater extent. It will also block the T2 innervation of the axilla which can be a source of pain in complex arthroscopic shoulder surgery. Lumbar ESP blocks provide effective analgesia following hip arthroplasty and arthroscopy, and appear comparable to lumbar plexus, quadratus lumborum, and fascia iliaca blocks. Unlike the latter, they are motor-sparing and are associated with improved postoperative ambulation. SUMMARY: High thoracic and lumbar ESP blocks have the potential to provide adequate analgesia of the upper and lower limbs respectively, without causing significant motor block. They are thus alternative methods of regional anesthesia when other techniques are not feasible or have undesirable adverse effects.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".