Correlation between pressure pain threshold and L4-5 supraspinous ligament biomechanics after cesarean delivery under spinal anesthesia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BackgroundLocalized low back pain is a frequent complaint after spinal anesthesia for cesarean delivery (CD).ObjectivesThis study aimed to examine the pressure pain threshold (PPT) and biomechanical properties (stiffness, elasticity, relaxation time, and creep) of the L4-5 supraspinous ligament at the spinal anesthesia needle insertion site in women who had CD. These measurements were compared with those from the controls who never had pregnancy or anesthesia, and correlations between the variables were explored.MethodsA retrospective cohort study involved 44 women, divided into two groups. Group A: 22 women experienced spinal anesthesia for CD, and Group B: 22 women represented the controls. L4-5 supraspinous ligament's PPT was measured using pressure algometry, and its biomechanical properties were assessed with the MyotonPRO device.ResultsSignificant differences were found in PPT between the two groups (P = 0.0001), but non-significant differences were observed in stiffness, elasticity, relaxation time, or creep (P = 0.318, 0.344, 0.241, and 0.227, respectively). There were also non-significant correlations between PPT and biomechanical properties.ConclusionWomen who experienced spinal anesthesia for CD showed increased tenderness and lower PPT at the L4-5 site, 6-12 weeks postpartum, with minor changes in supraspinous ligament biomechanics. The relationship between PPT and these properties was negligible.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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 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".