Efficiency of Infiltration with Bupivacain after Modified Radical Mastectomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pre-incisional infiltration of anaesthetic is proven to reduce postoperative pain in breast cancer surgery. However, studies of post-incisional infiltration for modified radical mastectomy are rare. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether post-incisional infiltration with bupivacaine provides improved postoperative pain relief and a cost-effective benefit. METHODS: This is a retrospective study. Between January 2006 and May 2008, 139 patients who received modified radical mastectomy were recruited to participate in the study. Patients receiving local infiltration received bupivacaine (0.5% bupivacaine, 5 ml diluted to 10 ml with distilled water) injected into the dermis surrounding the incision after wound suture. Pain intensity was evaluated using a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) score and measurement of the required doses of meperidine and acetaminophen. The pain score was recorded every eight hours for three days. RESULTS: All patients were female. Seventy-two patients received local infiltration with bupivacaine after wound suture and 67 patients did not. There were no significant differences between the two patient groups in age, body weight and height, length of general anaesthesia and operative time. Hospital stay was significantly shorter for patients receiving local infiltration of bupivacaine. The VAS score was higher up to 16 hours post-surgery for patients who did not receive local infiltration. Meperidine and acetaminophen consumption was less for patients who received local infiltration (P = 0.010). CONCLUSION: Post-incisional wound infiltration with bupivacaine can relieve pain during the first 16 hours after surgery and shorten hospital stay, and it provides a cost-effective benefit.
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) | 0.001 | 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".