Is postoperative epidural analgesia better than patient-controlled analgesia for radical cystectomy?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The purpose of this study was to evaluate postoperative epidural analgesia (EPA) and intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) in terms of morbidity and mortality in patients undergoing radical cystectomy for bladder cancer. Methods: A retrospective study on patients undergoing radical cystectomy for clinical Tis-4N0M0 urothelial carcinoma of the bladder was performed. Patients were separated into two groups: primary EPA or PCA for postoperative analgesia. The surgical complication severity was determined according to the Clavien system. Mann-Whitney U tests, χ2 with Yates’ correction, or Fisher’s exact test were used. Predictive risk factors were explored using univariable and multivariable Cox regression models. Results: Of the 274 patients studied, 209 (76%) received EPA and 65 (24%) had PCA. Baseline balance was observed. Similar complication rates were observed between the EPA (36%) and PCA (34%) ( p=0.382). Patients greater than 70 years of age had more complications (35% vs 21%, p=0.002). PCA patients had higher rates of high-grade complications compared with EPA patients [40% vs 20% ( p=0.0007)]. Only age at time of surgery ( p=0.032) was associated with complications. Patients with pulmonary disease had a higher risk of complications ( p=0.001). EPA or PCA were not predictors for overall survival. Conclusions: There does not appear to be a significant difference in terms of morbidity or mortality between EPA and PCA following radical cystectomy (RC). Rare, catastrophic complications specific to EPA may occur. Standardized reporting of surgical complications is essential to compare studies and appropriately counsel patients.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".