A Comparison of Intrathecal Morphine/Fentanyl and Patient-Controlled Analgesia with Patient-Controlled Analgesia Alone for Analgesia After Liver Resection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Continuous epidural anesthesia and analgesia may be considered in liver resection, but is often avoided because of the potential development of coagulopathies and the risk of epidural hematoma. In this prospective, randomized, double-blind study we compared postoperative morphine consumption via patient-controlled analgesia after liver surgery between two groups of patients: patients receiving a preoperative dose of intrathecal morphine (0.5 mg) and fentanyl (15 microg) (treatment group) and patients receiving a sham intrathecal injection (placebo group). Forty patients scheduled for major liver resection (> or = two segments) were enrolled. The primary outcome measure was patient-controlled analgesia morphine consumption. Secondary outcomes were evaluation of pain at rest and with movement, scored on a visual analog scale with assessment of sedation, nausea, pruritus, and respiratory frequency. Outcome measures were recorded at 6, 12, 18, 24, and 48 h postspinal anesthesia or simulation. Patients in the placebo group consumed approximately three times more morphine during each time interval than patients in the treatment group (at 48 h: 124 +/- 30 vs 47 +/- 21 mg, P < 0.0001). Pain evaluation on the visual analog scale was lower for the first 18 h in the treatment group. There was no difference in the incidence of side effects in both groups. Intrathecal morphine (0.5 mg) and fentanyl (15 microg) given before liver surgery significantly decreased postoperative morphine consumption compared to placebo without any increase in side 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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".