Block performance and hemodynamic side effects using Taylor’s lumbosacral approach compared to a lumbar approach for spinal anaesthesia

Clicks: 262
ID: 121124
2005
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Steady

Ranked #5 of 7 articles by views in regional anesthesia & pain medicine

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Abstract is not available for this article.
Login to Search Abstract
Reference Key
koch2005regionalblock Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors R.J. Litz,V.K. Meier,D. Wiessner,M. Brandt,A.R. Heller,T. Koch;R.J. Litz;V.K. Meier;D. Wiessner;M. Brandt;A.R. Heller;T. Koch;
Journal regional anesthesia & pain medicine
Year 2005
DOI
10.1016/j.rapm.2005.07.163
URL
https://sciprofiles.com/publication/view/49a0fd1720e620361609d5403aea3f1a
Keywords
side effects block performance hemodynamic side spinal anaesthesia using taylor lumbosacral approach lumbar approach approach compared

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.