ArticleLocal and regional anesthesia2023
Neuropathies Following an Ultrasound-Guided Axillary Brachial Plexus Block.
Article in Local and regional anesthesia, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Automated segmentation and quantitative measurement of cervical nerves in ultrasound images using an SZJ-SEG-based deep learning framework.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Ultrasound-guided brachial plexus block (UGBPB) has interscalene, supraclavicular, infraclavicular, and axillary approaches. The axillary block is considered to be the safest and with fewer adverse events compared to the interscalene (eg, phrenic nerve block, spinal cord or vertebral artery puncture) and supraclavicular (eg, pneumothorax). However, with regard to postoperative neurological symptoms (PONS), it is controversial whether its incidence after an axillary block was higher than that after non-axillary approaches". In this study, we investigated whether the incidence of a neuropathy after an axillary block was higher than that after non-axillary approaches. Patients and Methods: This was a single-center, retrospective cohort study. All UGBPBs were performed under general anesthesia between January 2014 and March 2020. The outcomes included the overall incidence of PONS and neuropathies for axillary and non-axillary approaches. The etiology, symptoms, and outcomes of patients were investigated. Results: Of the 992 patients, 143 (14%) and 849 (86%) were subjected to axillary and non-axillary approaches, respectively. Among 19 cases (19.2:1000; 95% confidence interval [CI], 18.2-20.1) of PONS, four (4.0:1000; 95% CI, 3.8-4.2) were neuropathies attributed to the UGBPB, three (21.0:1000; 95% CI, 18.1-23.8) to the axillary and one (2.8:1000; 95% CI, 2.6-3.1) to non-axillary approaches. The incidence of neuropathies after an axillary block was significantly higher than that after non-axillary approaches (P = 0.005). Conclusion: The incidence of neuropathies after US-guided axillary block under general anesthesia was significantly higher than that after non-axillary approaches.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.