Mechanisms of regional anaesthesia protection against hyperalgesia and pain chronicization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The aim of the present review is to describe how regional anaesthesia might oppose neuronal changes that surgery and opioids cause in the central nervous system to block both pain sensitization and chronicization following surgery. This might help anaesthesiologists to better understand the impact of their practice on the development of postoperative chronic pain. RECENT FINDINGS: Even though there are more evidences from animals and clinical trials showing that regional anaesthesia might impact the acute pain/hyperalgesia and chronic postsurgical pain, the controversy on how and when to use regional anesthesia to avoid chronic pain persists. Animal studies brought only a very partial answer on what to do in our daily clinical practice. Clinical studies were performed in different types of surgery with various protocols so that a strong conclusion on whether or not using regional anesthesia might benefit the patient to decrease the risk of postoperative chronic pain remains unclear. Studies performed with neuraxial anaesthesia seem to bring better evidences than those with nerve blocks. Future studies will have to specifically evaluate acute hyperalgesia and postoperative chronic pain and not only the classical pain scores and analgesic consumption to bring us the answer we all need. SUMMARY: Regional anaesthesia is able to reduce postoperative acute hyperalgesia and long-term chronic pain by decreasing pain sensitization induced by the surgery itself, and intraoperative use and opioid-induced hyperalgesia. Nevertheless, clinical studies on neuraxial anaesthesia and nerve blocks did not bring so far a strong conclusion to this question, and further better designed studies are necessary.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".