MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2288711969 · doi:10.1055/s-0035-1558656

Efficacy of Postoperative Pain Management Using Continuous Local Anesthetic Infusion at the Iliac Crest Bone Graft Site in Patients with Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: A Parallel, Double-Blinded, Randomized Controlled Pilot Trial

2015· article· en· W2288711969 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Dino Samartzis, Cora Bow, Jason Pui Yin Cheung, Phoebe Sham, Kin-Cheung Mak, Wai-Yuen Cheung, Yat-Wa Wong, Keith D.K. Luk, Kmc Cheung, Jean-Claude Lawmin

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Spine Journal · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAnesthesia and Pain Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRandomized controlled trialLevobupivacaineIliac crestAnesthesiaSurgeryAnalgesicVisual analogue scaleLocal anesthetic

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Study Design Randomized controlled trial. Objective Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) is a common spinal deformity that affects every population. In severe deformity, surgical intervention is performed. Autogenous iliac crest bone graft (ICBG) harvesting remains a common procedure worldwide for scoliosis surgery. Postoperative pain at the ICBG donor site is a major concern in patients undergoing spine surgery that affects postoperative functional outcome and consumes health care resources. Previous studies have noted a decrease in pain and postoperative analgesic use with the application of continuous infusion of anesthetic at the ICBG site in comparison with placebo. However, there is lack of evidence addressing the efficacy of continuous anesthetic infusion at the ICBG site in young patients and in particular those with spinal deformity, such as AIS. As such, this parallel, double-blinded, randomized controlled trial addressed the pain management efficacy of continuous anesthetic infusion versus saline at the ICBG site in patients with AIS during the immediate postoperative period. Methods Participants were randomized into two groups. Group A (control subjects) received 3 mL per hour of saline locally at the ICBG site, and group B (treatment subjects) received a constant rate of infusion of 3 mL per hour of 0.25% levobupivacaine. Both groups received their postoperative intervention for 47 hours. All subjects and outcome assessors were blinded to the type of intervention. Utilizing the visual analog pain scale, pain was assessed at the primary spine surgical site, ICBG site, and contralateral ICBG site. Overall physical pain was assessed by the McGill Pain Questionnaire. The degree of analgesic use and complications were also evaluated. All outcomes were assessed up until the fourth day of the patients' hospitalization following surgery. Results Twelve subjects were recruited (five in group A; seven in group B). No difference was noted at baseline regarding age, weight, height, arm span, sex, curve type, instrumented and fused levels, length of hospitalization, and pain scores between groups. Postoperatively, no difference was noted in surgical site pain between groups (p > 0.05). However, decreased ICBG and contralateral ICBG pain decreased twofold in group B patients in comparison with group A. Similarly, group B subjects had notably decreased postoperative overall pain scores (group A, mean 15.3; group B, mean 3.8). No significant differences were noted for the pain scores due to the small sample size. Conclusions This study is the first with a robust level I study design to assess the efficacy of continuous infusion of analgesia into the ICBG site in young patients with AIS. This pilot study noted a trend that continuous anesthetic infusion reduces pain at the ICBG site and may further decrease overall physical bodily pain. This study further established a sample size calculation to facilitate large-scale studies addressing these parameters. This study provides further support of postoperative pain management options for children with spinal deformities.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.895

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.252 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Spine JournalSame topicAnesthesia and Pain ManagementFrench-language works237,207