Evaluation of Epidural Analgesic Paste Components in Lumbar Decompressive Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Adjuncts for pain management in lumbar decompressive surgery are needed to reduce narcotic consumption and promote early mobility. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and active components of a previously described epidural analgesic paste in controlling postoperative pain and facilitating early discharge from hospital after lumbar decompressive surgery. METHODS: A randomized double-blind controlled trial was conducted. Two-hundred and one patients were randomized to 1 of 4 analgesic epidural pastes at the time of lumbar spinal surgery: combination paste (morphine + methylprednisolone), steroid paste (methylprednisolone alone), morphine paste (morphine alone), or placebo. The primary outcome measures used were analgesic consumption and the McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ). Secondary outcome measures were: modified American Spinal Cord Injury Association (ASIA) score, Short Form 36 General Health Survey (SF-36), Aberdeen Pain Index (ABPI), time to ambulation and time to discharge from hospital. RESULTS: Administration of combination and steroid paste, but not morphine paste, resulted in a statistically significant reduction in mean pain rating index (PRI) and present pain intensity (PPI) components of the MPQ in the first 3 days after surgery. Likewise, postoperative in-patient narcotic analgesic consumption was reduced in the combination paste and steroid paste group, but not in the morphine paste group. No difference in time to ambulation or discharge, SF-36 scores, ABPI scores, or neurologic recovery was observed. CONCLUSION: An analgesic paste containing methylprednisolone acetate is effective at reducing postoperative pain after lumbar decompressive surgery. Mixing effective doses of morphine sulfate in the paste abrogates the expected analgesic effects of epidural morphine.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".