Acute and chronic postsurgical pain after living liver donation: Incidence and predictors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite its prominence as a concern among potential surgical candidates, there is little information in the literature regarding the short- and long-term pain experience after living liver donation. We undertook a prospective study to examine (1) the nature and incidence of acute and chronic pain after living donor hepatectomy and (2) the factors associated with an increased or decreased risk of adverse pain outcomes. Before donation, a comprehensive assessment of potential predictors of acute and chronic pain outcomes was conducted; this included donors' pain expectations, psychosocial factors, medical histories, and demographic factors. Detailed data regarding pain outcomes were collected postoperatively (days 1 and 2) and again during 6- and 12-month follow-up telephone interviews. Sixty-five adults (32 females and 33 males) scheduled for donor hepatectomy participated. Substantial proportions of the donors reported a moderate-to-severe level of pain intensity (≥4 on a 0-10 scale) at rest and after movement on day 1 (42% and 74%, respectively) and day 2 (33% and 32%, respectively). Persistent postsurgical pain was reported by 31% of the donors at the 6-month follow-up and by 27% of the donors at the 12-month follow-up. Generally, this pain was mild, and pain-related life interference was minimal. Female sex, a younger age, and several predonation measures of pain-related anxiety were associated with a significantly greater risk of developing persistent postsurgical pain. In conclusion, this study has identified a subset of patients who experience persistent pain after living liver donation. Additional prospective research using larger samples of liver donors is needed to replicate this work, to obtain a more detailed account of the acute and long-term pain experience, and to determine whether targeted interventions can minimize the frequency and severity of chronic pain.
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".