Self-induced Hot Water Finger Burn Trying to Get Feeling Back after Ropivacaine Block
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This case report is about a patient with self-induced hot water burns several hours after an infraclavicular block with ropivacaine for a scaphoid fracture operation. This patient was honest about what happened. However, some patients are too embarrassed to admit what they did to themselves. The injury may be misdiagnosed by the emergency department physician or by the surgeon because the history is incomplete. The resulting burn, which can lead to fingertip loss when severe, can be erroneously misdiagnosed as an ischemic injury after lidocaine with epinephrine local anesthesia. Most hand surgeons have seen ischemic finger injuries the morning after failed finger replantation. Acutely ischemic fingers from arterial insufficiency do not have parallel hot water burn lines, reactive hyperemia at the base of the burn, or burn blisters at the fingertips. The purpose of this article and its video is to help physicians and nurses recognize the three signs of self-induced hot water finger burns after local anesthesia: (1) a parallel hot water line in the fingers at the proximal burn level; (2) reactive hyperemia just proximal to the burn line; (3) burn blisters in the submerged fingertips. When seeing postoperative patients with these signs, the examining clinician may tactfully ask: "Did you try to get the feeling back in your fingers by warming them?" It is hoped that the patient may then reveal that he tried warming the finger in water, and that may lead to the truth that the water was indeed too hot.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".