Continuous intra‐articular infusion of bupivacaine for post‐operative pain relief after total hip arthroplasty: A randomized, placebo‐controlled, double‐blind study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Instillation of local anesthetics into a surgical site has been gaining popularity in post-operative pain management. AIM: To determine whether continuous intra-articular infusion of bupivacaine via pain-control infusion pumps (PCIP) enhances and sustains analgesia after total hip arthroplasty (THA). METHODS: Ninety-two patients undergoing THA were randomized to receive continuous intra-articular infusion of either 0.5% bupivacaine or 0.9% normal saline at a flow rate of 2 mL/h via a PCIP for 48 h. The primary outcome measure was pain intensity on Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) scores in the first 72 h. Other measures included time to first rescue dose of narcotics, amount of narcotic use, presence of adverse events, length of hospital stay, and hip function evaluated with the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis (WOMAC) index. RESULTS: Despite a longer time to first narcotic rescue (56 versus 21 min, p<0.0001) in patients receiving bupivacaine, the two groups did not differ significantly in overall pain relief (p=0.54). A lower VAS score was found only at time 0 and 2 h; no difference in VAS score was noted at any other time point. Additionally, no difference was found in terms of amount of narcotic use, incidence of adverse events, hospitalization days, and the WOMAC score. CONCLUSION: Continuous intra-articular infusion of 0.5% bupivacaine at 2 mL/h via a PCIP does not provide sustained post-operative pain relief in patients undergoing THA.
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) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.005 | 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".