Continuous Femoral Nerve Block versus Intravenous Patient Controlled Analgesia for Knee Mobility and Long‐Term Pain in Patients Receiving Total Knee Replacement: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives. To evaluate the comparative analgesia effectiveness and safety of postoperative continuous femoral nerve block (CFNB) with patient controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA) and their impact on knee function and chronic postoperative pain. Methods. Participants were randomly allocated to receive postoperative continuous femoral nerve block (group CFNB) or intravenous patient controlled analgesia (group PCIA). Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) scores for knee and incidence of chronic postoperative pain at 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively were compared. postoperative pain and salvage medication at rest or during mobilization 24 hours, 48 hours, and 7 days postoperatively were also recorded. Results. After discharge from the hospital and rehabilitation of joint function, patients in group CFNB reported significantly improved knee flexion and less incidence of chronic postoperative pain at 3 months and 6 months postoperatively (P < 0.05). Analgesic rescue medications were significantly reduced in patients receiving CFNB (P < 0.001 and P = 0.031, resp.). Conclusion. With standardized rehabilitation therapy, continuous femoral nerve block analgesia reduced the incidence of chronic postoperative pain, improved motility of replaced joints, and reduced the dosages of rescue analgesic medications, suggesting a recovery-enhancing effect of peripheral nerve block analgesia.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".