Is a Single Low Dose of Intrathecal Morphine a Useful Adjunct to Patient‐Controlled Analgesia for Postoperative Pain Control Following Lumbar Spine Surgery? A Preliminary Report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Several studies addressing intrathecal morphine (ITM) use following spine surgery have been published either involving the pediatric population, using mid- to high-dose ITM, or not in conjunction with morphine patient-controlled analgesia (PCA). OBJECTIVES: To determine whether low-dose ITM is a useful adjunct to PCA for postoperative pain control following elective lumbar spine surgery in adults. METHODS: Thirty-two patients were enrolled in a double-blinded randomized controlled trial, and received either ITM or intrathecal placebo. Postoperatively, all patients were given a PCA pump and observed for the first 24 h in a step-down unit. Measurements of: total PCA morphine consumed in the first 24 h; intensity of pain; pruritus; nausea at 4 h, 8 h and 24 h; time to first ambulation; length of hospital stay; and occurrences of respiratory depression were recorded. RESULTS: The total PCA use was significantly lower in the ITM group. There were lower average pain scores in the ITM group, which increased to that of the intrathecal placebo group over 24 h; however, this failed to attain statistical significance. There were no differences in nausea, pruritus, time to first ambulation or hospital length stay. There were no cases of respiratory depression in either group. CONCLUSIONS: ITM may be a useful adjunct to PCA, but did not decrease time to ambulation or length of stay.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".