MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403157078 · doi:10.1111/pan.15019

Intravenous lidocaine infusion therapy and intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring in adolescents undergoing idiopathic scoliosis correction: A retrospective study

2024· article· en· W4403157078 on OpenAlexafffund
Rachel Bates, Fiona Cave, Nicholas West, Jeffrey N. Bone, Bradley Hofmann, Firoz Miyanji, Gillian Lauder

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Anesthesia · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntraoperative Neuromonitoring and Anesthetic Effects
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaKelowna General HospitalBC Children's Hospital
FundersBiotalent CanadaBC Children's Hospital
KeywordsMedicineIntraoperative neurophysiological monitoringScoliosisAnesthesiaSomatosensory evoked potentialLidocaineRetrospective cohort studyConfidence intervalSpinal fusionNeurophysiologySurgeryIdiopathic scoliosisInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Posterior spinal instrumentation and fusion is an established surgical procedure for the correction of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring is standard practice for this procedure. Anesthetic agents can have different, but significant, effects on neurophysiological monitoring outcomes. AIM: To determine if intravenous lidocaine infusion therapy has an impact on the intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring during posterior spinal instrumentation and fusion for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. METHODS: Following ethical approval, we conducted a retrospective review of charts and the archived intraoperative neurophysiological data of adolescents undergoing posterior spinal instrumentation and fusion for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring data included the amplitude of motor evoked potentials and the amplitude and latency of somatosensory evoked potentials. A cohort who received intraoperative lidocaine infusion were compared to those who did not. RESULTS: Eighty-one patients were included in this analysis, who had surgery between February 4, 2016 and April 22, 2021: 39 had intraoperative intravenous lidocaine infusion and 42 did not. Based on hourly snapshot data, there was no evidence that lidocaine infusion had a detrimental effect on the measured change from baseline for MEP amplitudes in either lower (mean difference 41.9; 95% confidence interval -304.5 to 388.3; p = .182) or upper limbs (MD -279.0; 95% CI -562.5 to 4.4; p = .054). There was also no evidence of any effect on the measured change from baseline for SSEP amplitudes in either lower (MD 16.4; 95% CI -17.7 to 50.5; p = .345) or upper limbs (MD -2.4; 95% CI -14.5 to 9.8; p = .701). Finally, there was no evidence of a difference in time to first reportable neurophysiological event (hazard ratio 1.13; 95% CI 0.61 to 2.09; p = .680). CONCLUSIONS: Data from these two cohorts provide preliminary evidence that intravenous lidocaine infusion has no negative impact on intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring during PSIF for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.254 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatric AnesthesiaSame topicIntraoperative Neuromonitoring and Anesthetic EffectsFrench-language works237,207