The prevalence of chronic chest and leg pain following cardiac surgery: a historical cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chronic pain after surgery is recognised as an important post-operative complication; recent studies have shown up to 30% of patients reporting persistent pain following mastectomy and inguinal hernia repair. No large-scale studies have investigated the epidemiology of chronic pain at two operative sites following coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). This paper reports the follow-up of a cohort of 1348 patients who underwent cardiac surgery between 1996 and 2000 at one cardiothoracic unit in northeast Scotland. Chronic pain was defined as pain in the location of surgery, different from that suffered pre-operatively, arising post-operatively and persisting beyond 3 months. The survey questionnaire consisted of the short-form-36 (SF-36), Rose angina questionnaire, McGill pain questionnaire and the University of California and San Francisco (UCSF) pain service questionnaire. Of the 1080 responders, 130 reported chronic chest pain, 100 chronic post-saphenectomy pain and 194 reported pain at both surgical sites. The cumulative prevalence of post-cardiac surgery pain was 39.3% (CI(95) 36.4-42.2%) and mean time of 28 months since surgery (SD 15.3 months). Patients who reported pain at both sites had lower quality of life scores across all eight health domains compared to patients with pain at one site only and those who were pain-free. Prevalence of chronic pain decreased with age, from 55% in those aged under 60 years to 34% in patients over 70 years. Patients with pre-operative angina and those who were overweight or obese (BMI>/=25) at the time of surgery were more likely to report chronic pain. Chronic pain following median sternotomy and saphenous vein harvesting is more common than hitherto reported and that patients undergoing CABG should be warned of this possibility.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".