Local Administration of Morphine for Analgesia After Autogenous Anterior or Posterior Iliac Crest Bone Graft Harvest for Spinal Fusion: A Prospective, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Harvesting of iliac crest graft for spinal fusions is associated with a number of patients reporting residual or chronic pain at the harvest site. Various interventions, including morphine infiltration, have been proposed to minimize the associated pain. METHODS: We performed a prospective, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study comparing intraoperative infiltration of 5 mg morphine (treatment) versus saline (placebo) into the iliac crest harvest site for patients undergoing elective spinal surgery. Patients with myelopathy, excessive perioperative opioid use (60 mg equivalent morphine/d or more), or multilevel (>3 levels) spinal surgery were excluded. Postoperative administration of morphine (recovery room and patient-controlled analgesia) was standardized. Numerical pain scores specific for the iliac crest site were determined in the immediate postoperative period and at 3, 6, and 12 months. RESULTS: Of the 54 patients randomized, 47 (87%) were available for review with a minimum of 1-year follow-up. The groups were similar in baseline age, gender, and comorbidities. There was no significant difference between groups in total use of postoperative morphine during the first 24 hours (P = 0.48). Repeated measures analysis of variance demonstrated no interacting effect of group over time for hip pain at rest (P = 0.94), hip pain while moving (P = 0.90), spine pain at rest (P = 0.99), or spine pain while moving (P = 0.83). The proportion of patients reporting iliac crest pain at 1-year follow-up was the same between groups (P = 0.95). CONCLUSIONS: This study has demonstrated that there are no additional benefits for the use of intraoperative infiltration of morphine into the iliac crest harvest site during spinal fusions.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".