Reducing Patient Discomfort during Digital Blockade: The Subcutaneous Single Injection Digital Block – A Simple, Safe and Fast Procedure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Regional anesthesia of a single finger is commonly achieved by the traditional ring block, which requires at least two painful injections in the digit. Single injection digital block techniques have been described to avoid this problem. Among these, the subcutaneous technique described by Harbison appears to be safe and to allow most procedures to be carried out with good tolerance. OBJECTIVES: A prospective study was designed to evaluate the results of the subcutaneous technique in terms of patient tolerance, distribution of anesthesia and efficiency. METHODS: All blocks were performed by a single investigator. A visual analog scale was used to evaluate pain associated with the injection. Prick testing was used to evaluate the quality of anesthesia at the volar and dorsal aspects of the phalanxes. Tolerance to the surgical procedure and the need for additional injections were also recorded. RESULTS: This technique allowed surgery to be performed without complementary injection most of the time and was very well tolerated. The dorsum of the proximal phalanx, however, was unpredictably included in the anesthetized territory. CONCLUSION: The subcutaneous single injection digital block is safe, efficient and easy to perform. It allows the treatment of all conditions on the volar aspect of the finger and on the dorsal aspect of the distal and middle phalanxes. For surgery on the dorsal aspect of the proximal phalanx, a combined single injection technique or a supplementary dorsal block should be used.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".