Spinal anesthesia in children: an educational review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the well-known benefits of spinal anesthesia (SA), this technique remains underutilized among pediatric anesthesiologists. According to the data from the Pediatric Regional Anesthesia Network, SA accounted for less than 5% of all neuraxial techniques. Some of the factors for underutilization of SA include: Limited duration, unfamiliarity with the technique in younger children, and surgeon preference for general anesthesia. The safe and successful use of SA in children involves recognition of anatomical and physiological differences between adults and children owing to differences in bony structures, spinal cord growth and cerebrospinal fluid physiology. Reports on successful use of SA in children for various surgeries have increased. This educational review summarizes what is known about SA in children, reviews the literature from the last decade and provides suggestions for development of SA in children. Technical considerations, role of ultrasound, guidance on dosing, physiological effects, unexplained aspects of the mechanism of action and combined caudal/SA are discussed.
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) | 0.000 | 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".