Forgotten pioneers of erector spinae plane block: historical digression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the newest methods of interfacial blocks is the erector spinae plane (ESP) block, which is considered to have been first described by Forero in 2016. Given its simplicity and safety, the ESP block is used for postoperative analgesia during surgery on the abdominal organs, chest, breast, and spine and in the treatment of chronic pain. This study aimed to describe the historical aspects of the origin of the blockade of back-straightening muscles and the possibilities of its application in clinical practice. Articles published from January 2023 to April 2023 in PubMed (MEDLINE), Cochrane Library, and RSCI databases were searched by two independent researchers. The date of the last search was April 10, 2023. A total of 546 studies were identified, of which 68 were included in the review. Analysis and synthesis methods were used to construct the conclusion based on the information obtained. The history of the blockade of back-straightening muscles began in 1994 when Professor B.M. Rachkov and Professor V.M. Kustov received a patent Method for treatment of pain in the pathology of the spinal cord and spinal column. The blockade technique proposed by M. Forero was nearly identical to the RachkovKustov method with respect to the direction of needle insertion and the injection site of the local anesthetic solution. The mechanism of action of the ESP block has not been definitively established. Data on possible complications and side effects of the ESP block are presented. Therefore, we have every reason to state that the Russian scientists Professor B.M. Rachkov and V.M. Kustov discovered the blockade of back-straightening muscles and not the Canadian Professor M. Forero. Further studies are needed to determine specific indications and evidence of the efficacy of the blockade of back-straightening muscles in comparison with other regional methods of anesthesia.
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 | 0.016 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".