Epidural Ropivacaine versus Epidural Morphine and the Catabolic Response to Colonic Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The authors examined the hypothesis that epidural administration of local anesthetic, in contrast to epidural analgesia with morphine, inhibits postoperative protein oxidation during administration of glucose. METHODS: Fourteen patients were randomly assigned to undergo a 6-h stable isotope infusion study (3 h fasted, 3 h feeding with 4 mg.kg(-1).min(-1) glucose) on the second day after colorectal surgery using epidural analgesia with either continuous ropivacaine or intermittent morphine. Protein synthesis, breakdown and oxidation, and glucose production were measured by L-[L-13C]leucine and [6,6-2H2]glucose. Substrate oxidation rates were determined by indirect calorimetry. Plasma concentrations of metabolic substrates and hormones were also measured. RESULTS: Whole body protein breakdown, oxidation, synthesis, and glucose production in the fasted state were similar between the two groups. Glucose administration decreased protein breakdown (P = 0.01), protein synthesis (P = 0.001), and glucose production (P = 0.001) to the same extent in both groups, whereas protein oxidation was not significantly affected. The type of epidural analgesia did not significantly influence the circulating concentrations of metabolic substrates and hormones in the fasted or in the fed state. Carbohydrate oxidation rate in the ropivacaine group was greater than in patients receiving morphine (P = 0.04), regardless of whether glucose was infused. CONCLUSION: Epidural analgesia achieved with ropivacaine or morphine does not suppress the catabolic response to surgery, either under fasting conditions or in the presence of an energy supply.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".