MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2338465949 · doi:10.1213/ane.0000000000001210

Pain After Unilateral Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial Examining the Analgesic Effectiveness of a Combined Adductor Canal Peripheral Nerve Block with Periarticular Infiltration Versus Adductor Canal Nerve Block Alone Versus Periarticular Infiltration Alone

2016· article· en· W2338465949 on OpenAlexaff
Monakshi Sawhney, Hossein Mehdian, Brian Kashin, Gregory Ip, M. Leontien van der Bent, Joyce Choy, Mark McPherson, Richard Bowry

Bibliographic record

VenueAnesthesia & Analgesia · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAnesthesia and Pain Management
Canadian institutionsNorth York General HospitalCanadian Institute for Health Information
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAdductor canalRopivacaineAnesthesiaAnalgesicSalineNerve blockRandomized controlled trialLocal anestheticArthroplastySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Total knee arthroplasty is a painful surgery that requires early mobilization for successful joint function. Multimodal analgesia, including spinal analgesia, nerve blocks, periarticular infiltration (PI), opioids, and coanalgesics, has been shown to effectively manage postoperative pain. Both adductor canal (AC) and PI have been shown to manage pain without significantly impairing motor function. However, it is unclear which technique is most effective. This 3-arm trial examined the effect of AC block with PI (AC + PI) versus AC block only (AC) versus PI only (PI). The primary outcome was pain on walking at postoperative day (POD) 1. METHODS: One hundred fifty-one patients undergoing unilateral total knee arthroplasty were included. Patients received either AC block with 30 mL of 0.5% ropivacaine or sham block. PI was performed intraoperatively with a 110-mL normal saline solution containing 300 mg ropivacaine, 10 mg morphine, and 30 mg ketorolac. Those patients randomly assigned to AC only received normal saline knee infiltration. RESULTS: On POD 1, participants who received AC + PI reported significantly lower pain numeric rating scale scores on walking (3.3) compared with those who received AC (6.2) or PI (4.9) (P < 0.0001). Participants who received AC reported significantly higher pain scores at rest and knee bend compared with those who received AC + PI or PI (P < 0.0001). The difference in pain scores between participants who received AC + PI and those who received AC was 2.83 (95% confidence interval, 1.58-4.09) and the difference between those who received AC + PI and those who received PI was 1.61 (95% confidence interval, 0.37-2.86). On POD 2, participants who received AC + PI reported significantly less pain on walking (4.4) compared with those who received AC (5.6) or PI (5.6) (P = 0.006). On POD 2, there was no difference between the groups for pain at rest or knee bending. Participants who received AC used more IV patient-controlled analgesia on POD 0. There was no difference between the groups regarding distance walked. CONCLUSIONS: Participants who received AC + PI reported significantly less pain on walking on PODs 1 and 2 compared with those who received AC only or PI only.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.127
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.212 · 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.

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

Citations124
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnesthesia & AnalgesiaSame topicAnesthesia and Pain ManagementFrench-language works237,207