Preventive Analgesia Is Associated with Reduced Pain Disability 3 Weeks but Not 6 Months after Major Gynecologic Surgery by Laparotomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Most studies of preemptive or preventive analgesia restrict outcomes to pain and analgesic consumption in the acute postoperative period. The potential longer-term effects on these and other domains of functioning have received little empirical attention. The purpose of this study was to follow up patients who had received general anesthesia plus epidural fentanyl and lidocaine before (group 1) or after (group 2) incision or general anesthesia plus a sham epidural (group 3). METHODS: Patients were contacted approximately 3 weeks and 6 months after surgery. A follow-up pain questionnaire and the McGill Pain Questionnaire were administered by telephone. The Mental Health Inventory and Pain Disability Index were mailed to patients, completed, and mailed back. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-one of the 141 patients (93%) were reached 3 weeks after surgery (n = 41, n = 48, and n = 42 in groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively), and 109 (77%) were reached at 6 months (n = 35, n = 37, and n = 37 in groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively). Multivariate analysis of covariance indicated that that even after controlling for age and presence or absence of preoperative pain, Pain Disability Index scores (mean +/- SD) at the first follow-up were significantly lower in group 1 (17.3 +/-12.8) and group 2 (18.1 +/-17.0) compared with group 3 (26.3 +/- 18.3). McGill Pain Questionnaire and Mental Health Inventory scores did not differ significantly among the groups. There were no significant differences at the 6-month follow-up. CONCLUSION: The short-term beneficial effects of preventive epidural analgesia translated into less pain disability 3 weeks after surgery. Progress in understanding the processes involved in postsurgical recovery and the risk factors for chronic postsurgical pain would be aided by baseline and postsurgical measures of relevant psychological, emotional, and physical variables.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".