Impact of femoral nerve block approach on anaesthetic drug requirements in dogs undergoing hindlimb orthopaedic surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This retrospective clinical audit aimed to determine which peripheral nerve block approach to the femoral nerve had lower intraoperative drug requirements. A total of 30 hospital records for client-owned dogs undergoing hindlimb orthopaedic surgery were reviewed, and 23 were included in statistical analysis. Dogs were grouped as follows: pre-iliac femoral approach (group PI, n=11); or femoral triangle (group FT, n=9). In group PI, the block was performed by drawing a line from the spinous process of the 6th lumbar vertebra, perpendicular to the spine in a drso-ventral direction. A second line parallel to the spine was drawn from the most cranial aspect of the iliac crest until the lines intersected. In the FT group, the femoral nerve was approached by finding the femoral pulse and inserting the needle slightly cranial to this landmark. Both groups used electrostimulation to confirm correct insertion. Dogs were monitored intraoperatively and received a fentanyl constant rate infusion. Analysed data included: the type of surgery, the execution time, the intraoperative fentanyl concentration, the intraoperative isoflurane concentration and any prolonged neurological complications. There was no statistically significant difference between the average use of intraoperative fentanyl (µg/kg/h) in dogs that received the FT approach (median, IQR) (3.25, 2.77–4.63) compared with those that received a PI approach (2.94, 2.55–3.43) (U=40.0, P=0.159). There was no statistically significant difference between the average percentage of intraoperative isoflurane used throughout the procedure in dogs that received the FT approach (1.8, 1.61–2.02) compared with those that received a PI approach (2.94, 2.55–3.43) (U=58.0, P=0.781). No proprioceptive deficits were noted. Neither femoral nerve block technique offered a superior approach to the patient's analgesic plan. Further research is needed to draw definitive conclusions.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".