Migration rate of proximal adductor canal block catheters placed parallel versus perpendicular to the nerve after total knee arthroplasty: a randomized controlled study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Perineural catheters placed parallel to the nerve course are reported to have lower migration rates than those placed perpendicular to it. However, catheter migration rates for a continuous adductor canal block (ACB) remain unknown. This study compared postoperative migration rates of proximal ACB catheters placed parallel and perpendicular to the saphenous nerve. METHODS: Seventy participants scheduled for unilateral primary total knee arthroplasty were randomly assigned for parallel or perpendicular placement of the ACB catheter. The primary outcome was the migration rate of the ACB catheter on postoperative day (POD) 2. Catheter migration was defined as being unable to confirm saline administration via the catheter around the saphenous nerve at the mid-thigh level under ultrasound guidance. Secondary outcomes included active and passive range of motion (ROM) of the knee on postoperative rehabilitation. RESULTS: Sixty-seven participants were included in the final analyses. The catheter migrated significantly less often in the parallel group (5 of 34 (14.7%)) than in the perpendicular group (24 of 33 (72.7%)) (p<0.001). The mean (SD) active and passive knee flexion ROM (degrees) improved significantly in the parallel than in the perpendicular group (POD 1: active, 88.4 (13.2) vs 80.0 (12.4), p=0.011; passive, 95.6 (12.8) vs 85.7 (13.6), p=0.004; POD 2: active, 88.7 (13.4) vs 82.2 (11.5), p=0.036; passive, 97.2 (12.8) vs 91.0 (12.0), p=0.045). CONCLUSION: Parallel placement of the ACB catheter provided a lower postoperative catheter migration rate than perpendicular placement of the ACB catheter along with corresponding improvements in ROM and secondary analgesic outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: UMIN000045374.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".