Treatment of Ischemic Pain in Patients Suffering from Peripheral Vasculopathy with Transdermal Buprenorphine Plus Epidural Morphine with Ropivacaine vs. Epidural Morphine with Ropivacaine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: This study compared the efficacy and safety of buprenorphine transdermal delivery system with peridural infusion of morphine and ropivacaine to peridural infusion alone for the control of ischemic pain in patients suffering from peripheral vasculopathy. METHODS: Eighty-six patients were randomized into two groups. In the first group, a buprenorphine patch 35 microg/hour TTDS (transtec transdermal device plus ropivacaine and morphine) was applied, and a peridural infusion of ropivacaine/morphine (200 mg + 2 mg) was established. In the second group, ropivacaine and morphine analgesia was obtained using a peridural infusion and a placebo patch. The primary efficacy parameter was the visual analog scale score for pain. Secondary parameters of efficacy were the short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire scores and a score for pain interference with sleep obtained from patient diaries evaluated every week for a period of 4 weeks. RESULTS: Subjects in the TTDS group reported a reduction in pain, increased sleep, and a lower incidence of side effects compared with the control group. CONCLUSION: Transdermal buprenorphine use resulted in significant pain relief with excellent patient satisfaction, which may translate into improvement in mood and quality of life.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".