Orthopaedic surgeons' perspectives on peripheral nerve blocks for surgical fixation of hip fractures in older adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: This study aimed to identify factors influencing orthopaedic surgeons' decision to request peripheral nerve blocks (PNBs) for older adults undergoing hip fracture surgery and to assess the need for further research. Design: A cross-sectional survey. Setting: Academic and private practice. Participants: One hundred twenty-nine orthopaedic surgeons. Intervention: A 24-question survey assessed PNB usage, perceived advantages and disadvantages. Main Outcome Measures: Survey responses describing factors influencing orthopaedic surgeons' decision to request PNBs for older adults undergoing hip fracture surgery. Results: Seventy-one percent of orthopaedic surgeons reported they believed there were benefits to using PNBs for older adults undergoing surgical fixation of hip fractures. The main perceived advantages were reduced pain and opioid use within 72 hours postoperatively. Primary concerns about PNB use were the negative impact on clinical care efficiency and delayed mobilization. Most surgeons (85%) agreed that higher-level evidence investigating benefits beyond acute postoperative pain control would aid decision-making. Conclusion: Surgeons believe PNBs provide acute postoperative analgesic benefits; however, concerns about delaying clinical care have likely limited widespread implementation. If future research demonstrates the effectiveness of PNBs beyond acute pain relief, it may further motivate healthcare systems to solve workflow challenges and increase the use of PNBs for hip fracture surgery. Level of Evidence: III, Cross-Sectional Study.
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 | 0.006 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".