Comparison of spinal anesthesia with general anesthesia on morphine requirement after abdominal hysterectomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare morphine consumption with patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) between spinal anesthesia (SA) (bupivacaine, morphine and fentanyl) and general anesthesia (GA) (sufentanil) after an abdominal hysterectomy. METHODS: Forty women were randomly assigned to receive SA with bupivacaine 15 mg, 0.15 mg of intrathecal morphine and 15 microg of fentanyl or GA with sufentanil, both combined with PCA. The primary outcome was morphine consumption with the PCA device. The secondary outcomes were post-operative pain at rest and under stress on a visual analog scale, nausea, pruritus and respiratory depression on a standardized scale. Outcome measures were recorded at 6, 12, 18, 24 and 48 h post-anesthesia. The duration of post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) and hospital stay were recorded. RESULTS: Patients in the SA group consumed at least two times less morphine at each time interval than the GA group: at 48 h, they used 19 +/- 17 vs. 81 +/- 31 mg (P<0.0001). Post-operative pain at rest was lower in the SA group until the 18th hour and under stress until the 48th. There was more sedation in the GA group until the 18th hour. Little difference was observed in the incidence of pruritus. Nausea was more intense at the 6th hour in the GA group. There was no difference in the respiratory rate. The duration of PACU stay was shorter for the SA group (52 +/- 9 vs. 73 +/- 11 min, P<0.0001) as was the duration of hospital stay (2.2 +/- 0.4 vs. 3.3 +/- 0.7 days, P=0.01). CONCLUSIONS: It is concluded that intrathecal morphine 0.15 mg with 15 microg of fentanyl decreases post-operative pain and morphine consumption by PCA without increasing adverse reactions for women undergoing an abdominal hysterectomy.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".