Peripheral nerve catheter securement: A narrative literature review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Peripheral nerve catheters are commonly used to provide analgaesia and improve patient outcomes. Catheter dislodgment, displacement or leakage can result in premature cessation of analgaesic effect. There are currently no published guidelines for how to secure peripheral nerve catheters. This narrative review explores and integrates the available research into the efficacy of peripheral nerve catheter securement products and techniques to reduce catheter dislodgement and displacement. All studies looking at peripheral nerve catheter securement methods were included from inception until 19 October 2022 across PUBMED, Scopus, Ovid, Google Scholar, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library. The Jadad scale and Newcastle–Ottawa scale were used to assess the methodological quality of randomised controlled trials and observational studies, respectively. Sixteen papers were included in this review. The results were mixed and substantial heterogeneity across studies further limited the ability to draw firm or generalisable conclusions. Rather, several products and techniques that may reduce catheter dislodgement, displacement or leakage, that can contribute to dislodgement, were identified for further investigation. There was some evidence to support the use of the catheter over needle technique, adhesive dressings and tissue adhesives. The number of studies investigatingsubcutaneous tunnelling and anchoring devices was particularly limited.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".