Evaluation of epidural administration of morphine or morphine and bupivacaine for postoperative analgesia after premedication with an opioid analgesic and orthopedic surgery in dogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the analgesic efficacy of epidural administration of morphine or a morphine-bupivacaine combination administered before orthopedic surgery in dogs that received opioid premedication. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, blinded, clinical study. ANIMALS: 36 healthy adult dogs that underwent elective orthopedic surgery on a pelvic limb. PROCEDURES: Each dog received 1 of 3 epidural treatments before surgery. Anesthetic and supportive care protocols were standardized. Dogs under going different surgical procedures were randomly allocated among the 3 treatment groups. Respiratory and cardiovascular variables, end-tidal isoflurane concentration, and requirements for rescue analgesia were monitored. Postsurgical analgesia was evaluated with a multiparametric pain scoring system and by determination of rescue analgesia requirements and cortisolemia. RESULTS: The morphine-bupivacaine combination was associated with lower values than morphine or a saline solution for intraoperative arterial blood pressure; minimum and maximum isoflurane requirements; and postoperative pain scores, rescue analgesia requirements, and plasma cortisol concentrations. Values obtained after administration of morphine alone were not significantly different from those obtained after administration of saline solution for most variables. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The preoperative epidurally administered morphine-bupivacaine combination induced better analgesia than morphine alone and should be considered for use in clinical patients. The degree of hemodynamic depression associated with the combination was considered acceptable for healthy patients undergoing elective surgery.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".