MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7074007013

Intravenous regional anesthesia: a review of common local anesthetic options and the use of opioids and muscle relaxants as adjuncts

2011· review· en· W7074007013 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueDove Medical Press (Taylor and Francis Group) · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicTheoretical and Computational Physics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntravenous regional anesthesiaTourniquetLevobupivacaineLidocaineLocal anestheticSufentanilFentanylRopivacaine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

David Flamer, Philip WH PengDepartment of Anesthesia, Toronto Western Hospital, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, CanadaPurpose: To provide a review of local anesthetic (LA) agents and adjuncts, opioids and muscle relaxants, and their intraoperative effects and postoperative outcomes in intravenous regional anesthesia (IVRA).Source: A search for prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled trials evaluating LA agents, opioids and muscle relaxants as adjuvants for IVRA, was conducted (MEDLINE®, Embase). Intraoperative benefits (onset/recovery of sensory and motor block, intraoperative analgesia, tourniquet pain), postoperative benefits (pain score, analgesic consumption, time to first analgesia), and side effects were recorded. A conclusion for overall benefit was made based on statistical significance and clinical relevance.Findings: Thirty-one studies were evaluated, with data collected on 1523 subjects. LA agents evaluated were lidocaine, ropivacaine, and prilocaine. Adjuncts evaluated were opioids (morphine, fentanyl, meperidine, sufentanil, tramadol) and muscle relaxants (pancuronium, atracurium, mivacurium, cisatacurium). There was good evidence that ropivacaine provided effective IVRA and improved postoperative analgesia. Lidocaine and prilocaine were effective LA agents, however they lacked postoperative benefits. Morphine, fentanyl, and meperidine as sole adjuncts did not demonstrate clinically significant benefits or result in an increased risk of side effects. Sufentanil data was limited, but appeared to provide faster onset of sensory block. Tramadol provided faster onset of sensory block and tourniquet tolerance, however postoperative benefits were not consistent and the risk of minor side effects increased. Muscle relaxants improved the quality of motor block, but at the expense of delayed motor recovery. The combination of fentanyl and muscle relaxants can achieve an equivalent quality of IVRA with 50% reduction in LA dose, but at the expense of a potentially slower onset of sensory block.Conclusion: Ropivacaine is effective for IVRA and improves postoperative analgesia. Muscle relaxants enhance the motor block and when combined with fentanyl allow for an equivalent quality of IVRA with 50% reduction in LA dose.Keywords: intravenous regional anesthesia, IVRA, adjuncts, local anesthetic, opioid, muscle relaxant

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.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.688
Threshold uncertainty score0.825

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.235 · 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