Postoperative Protein Sparing With Epidural Analgesia and Hypocaloric Dextrose
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We examined the hypothesis that epidural analgesia prevents the increase in amino acid oxidation after elective colorectal surgery in patients receiving hypocaloric infusion of dextrose. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Increased oxidative protein loss after surgery may adversely affect postoperative outcome. We have previously shown that effective segmental pain relief by epidural analgesia improves postoperative substrate utilization, resulting in less protein catabolism. METHODS: We randomly allocated 10 patients to receive general anesthesia combined with epidural analgesia using bupivacaine/fentanyl and 10 to receive general anesthesia followed by patient-controlled analgesia with intravenous morphine. All patients received a peripheral 72-hour infusion of dextrose 10% from the day before until the second day after surgery. The dextrose infusion rate was adjusted to provide 50% of the patients' resting energy expenditure. The primary end point was whole-body leucine oxidation as determined by a stable isotope tracer technique (l-[1-C]leucine). RESULTS: In the intravenous analgesia group, leucine oxidation increased from 19 +/- 4 to 28 +/- 6 micromol kg h after surgery. Epidural analgesia prevented this increase of leucine oxidation (preoperative 21 +/- 6 micromol kg h, postoperative 21 +/- 5 micromol kg h). This difference was statistically significant (P = 0.01; analysis of variance for repeated measures). CONCLUSION: Perioperative epidural analgesia and hypocaloric dextrose infusion suppress the postoperative increase in amino acid oxidation, thereby saving more than 100 g of lean body mass per day.
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".