Characteristics and Associated Features of Persistent Post-Sympathectomy Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to describe the incidence and characteristics of pain, sensory abnormalities, abnormal body sweating, and pathologic gustatory sweating in pain patients with persistent post-sympathectomy pain. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of a series of consecutive pain patients with persistent post-sympathectomy pain was performed. Inclusion criteria were: (1) sympathectomy performed for the indication of neuropathic pain, and (2) persistent pain after the procedure. Demographic data, patterns of pain before and after sympathectomy, patients' pain drawings, and incidence of pain had been collected concurrently at the time of referral. Additional data regarding sensory findings, surgical details of the sympathectomy, sweat patterns, and incidence of abnormal body sweating and pathologic gustatory sweating were extracted from the patients' charts or obtained in follow-up appointments. RESULTS: Seventeen adults (13 females and 4 males) with a mean age of 37 years (range 25-52) at the time of sympathectomy met the inclusion criteria. Five of the 17 patients experienced temporary pain relief for an average of 4 months (range 2-12 months), 3/17 retained the same pain as before the surgery, 1 patient was cured of her original pain but experienced a new debilitating pain, and 8/17 patients continued to have the same or worse pain in addition to a new or expanded pain. Pathologic gustatory sweating was present in 7/11 patients asked, and abnormal sweating (known as compensatory hyperhidrosis) in 11/13 patients asked. DISCUSSION: The present study does not allow for conclusions about the effectiveness of surgical sympathectomy for neuropathic pain. However, our findings indicate that if the pain persists after the procedure, the complications may be quite serious and at times worse than the problem for which the surgery was originally performed.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".