Epidural analgesia provides better pain management after live liver donation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the increase in surgical volumes of live liver donation, there has been very little documentation of the postoperative pain experience. The primary aim of this study was to examine the difference in acute postoperative pain intensity and adverse effects between patients who received intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IV PCA) or patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) for pain control after live liver donation surgery. A retrospective chart review was performed of 226 consecutive patients who underwent right living donor hepatic surgery at the Toronto General Hospital, Toronto, Canada. Patients who received as their primary postoperative analgesic modality IV PCA (n = 158) were compared to patients who received PCEA (n = 68). Demographic profiles for the 2 groups were similar with respect to age, sex, and body mass index at the time of surgery. For the first 3 postoperative days, pain intensity was significantly lower in patients who received epidural analgesia (P < 0.01). Clinically significant moderate pain (defined as a Numeric Rating Scale pain score >4) was reported more frequently in the IV PCA group (P < 0.05) along with increased sedation (P < 0.05). Pruritus was reported more frequently in the PCEA group of patients compared to the IV PCA group (P < 0.05). Significant between-group differences were not found for the incidence of postoperative vomiting, the time at which patients began fluid intake, the time to initial ambulation, or the length of hospital stay. In conclusion, epidural analgesia provides better postoperative pain relief, less sedation, but more pruritus than IV PCA after live liver donation.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".