Efficacy and safety of erector spinae plane block for the treatment of osteoporotic vertebral compressive fractures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of erector spinae plane block (ESPB) for the treatment of osteoporotic vertebral compressive fractures (OVCF). METHODS: A total of 120 OVCF patients, admitted between March 2022 and September 2022, were enrolled and assigned to either a control group or a research group (n=60 each) in this retrospective study. The control group received conventional analgesic treatment, while the research group was treated with ESPB. Data were collected at three time points: before surgery (T0), after four treatment sessions (T1), and prior to discharge (T2). Pain intensity was assessed using the Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ), which includes the Pain Rating Index (PRI), Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), and Present Pain Intensity (PPI). Inflammatory markers such as tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), high-mobility group box-1 (HMGB-1), and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) were measured. Additional parameters included the number of intramuscular tramadol injections from days 4 to 7, sleep quality using the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), quality of life via the 16-item Assessment of Health-Related Quality of Life in Osteoporosis (ECOS-16), and treatment satisfaction. RESULTS: The research group exhibited significant reductions in PRI, VAS, and PPI at T0, T1, and T2 compared to the control group (all P<0.05). At T1 and T2, pain scores in the research group were notably lower than those in the control group (all P<0.05). Two weeks post-treatment, levels of TNF-α, HMGB-1, and hs-CRP were significantly lower in the research group than in the control group and pre-treatment values (all P<0.05). Conversely, the ECOS-16 score was significantly higher in the research group (P<0.05). Furthermore, the research group required fewer intramuscular tramadol injections (days 4-7) and reported higher treatment satisfaction (both, P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: ESPB for OVCF patients demonstrated significant analgesic benefits, reducing pain, serum inflammatory markers, tramadol injections during days 4-7, and improving sleep quality, quality of life, and treatment satisfaction.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
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".