Postoperative Pain Following Foot and Ankle Surgery: A Prospective Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Orthopaedic procedures have been reported to have the highest incidence of pain compared to other types of operations. There are limited studies in the literature that investigate postoperative pain. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective study of 98 patients undergoing orthopedic foot and ankle operations was undertaken to evaluate their pain experience. A Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ) was administered preoperatively and postoperatively. RESULTS: The results showed that patients who experienced pain before the operation anticipated feeling higher pain intensity immediately postoperatively. Patients, on average, experienced higher pain intensity 3 days after the operation than anticipated. The postoperative pain intensity at 3 days was the most severe, while postoperative pain intensity at 6 weeks was the least severe. Age, gender and preoperative diagnosis (acute versus chronic) did not have a significant effect on the severity of pain that patients experienced. Six weeks following the operation, the majority of patients felt no pain. In addition, the severity of preoperative pain was highly predictive of their anticipated postoperative pain and 6-week postoperative pain, and both preoperative pain and anticipated pain predict higher immediate postoperative pain. CONCLUSION: The intensity of patients' preoperative pain was predictive of the anticipated postoperative pain. Patients' preoperative pain and anticipated postoperative pain were independently predictive of the 3-day postoperative pain. The higher pain intensity a patient experienced preoperatively suggested that their postoperative pain severity would be greater. Therefore, surgeons should be aware of these findings when treating postoperative pain after orthopaedic foot and ankle operations.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".