Surgically placed abdominal wall catheters on postoperative analgesia and outcomes after living liver donation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Living donor liver resections are associated with significant postoperative pain. Epidural analgesia is the gold standard for postoperative pain management, although it is often refused or contraindicated. Surgically placed abdominal wall catheters (AWCs) are a novel pain modality that can potentially provide pain relief for those patients who are unable to receive an epidural. A retrospective review was performed at a single center. Patients were categorized according to their postoperative pain modality: intravenous (IV) patient-controlled analgesia (PCA), AWCs with IV PCA, or patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA). Pain scores, opioid consumption, and outcomes were compared for the first 3 postoperative days. Propensity score matches (PSMs) were performed to adjust for covariates and to confirm the primary analysis. The AWC group had significantly lower mean morphine-equivalent consumption on postoperative day 3 [18.1 mg, standard error (SE)=3.1 versus 28.2 mg, SE=3.0; P=0.02] and mean cumulative morphine-equivalent consumption (97.2 mg, SE=7.2 versus 121.0 mg, SE=9.1; P=0.04) in comparison with the IV PCA group; the difference in cumulative-morphine equivalent remained significant in the PSMs. AWC pain scores were higher than those in the PCEA group and were similar to the those in the IV PCA group. The AWC group had a lower incidence of pruritus and a shorter hospital stay in comparison with the PCEA group and had a lower incidence of sedation in comparison with both groups. Time to ambulation, nausea, and vomiting were comparable among all 3 groups. The PSMs confirmed all results except for a decrease in the length of stay in comparison with PCEA. AWCs may be an alternative to epidural analgesia after living donor liver resections. Randomized trials are needed to verify the benefits of AWCs, including the safety and adverse effects.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".