Patient-controlled epidural analgesia with fentanyl-bupivacaine: Influence of prior dural puncture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Combined spinal epidural anesthesia (CSEA) involves the epidural administration of local anesthetic and opioid solutions adjacent to the prior dural puncture, potentially increasing their diffusion into the subarachnoid space. This study was designed to evaluate the influence of dural puncture on the adequacy and extent of analgesia, and drugs requirements of patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) in the postoperative period. METHODS: In this prospective double-blind study, 40 patients undergoing major abdominal surgery under general anesthesia followed with PCEA were randomly assigned to either group I (preoperative insertion of an epidural catheter) or group II (preoperative dural puncture with a 25-g Quincke needle + insertion of an epidural catheter). Postoperatively, a PCEA pump delivered an infusion of 0.1% bupivacaine + fentanyl (3 microg/mL) at 5 mL/h. Participants were allowed to self-administer 5-mL boluses of the same solution with a 15-minute lock-out interval. Hourly epidural solution requirements were recorded for 40 hours. Sensory and motor block, and pain scores were also analyzed. RESULTS: There was no difference between groups with regard to epidural solution requirements, pain scores, spread of sensory blockade, or intensity of motor block. CONCLUSION: Dural puncture with a 25-gauge Quincke needle, performed as part of CSEA, does not influence the drug requirements when a combination of 0.1% bupivacaine and fentanyl (3 microg/mL) is used for PCEA after major abdominal surgery.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".