MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2394806363 · doi:10.1097/eja.0000000000000345

Comparison of efficacy and safety of lateral-to-medial continuous transversus abdominis plane block with thoracic epidural analgesia in patients undergoing abdominal surgery

2015· article· en· W2394806363 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sugantha Ganapathy, Rakesh V. Sondekoppam, Magdalena Terlecki, Jonathan Brookes, Sanjib Das Adhikary, Lakshmimathy Subramanian

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Anaesthesiology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAnesthesia and Pain Management
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityLondon Health Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRopivacaineHydromorphoneAnesthesiaSurgeryBupivacaineCatheterBolus (digestion)AnalgesicAbdominal surgeryOpioid

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: We recently described a lateral-to-medial approach for transversus abdominis plane (LM-TAP) block, which may permit preoperative initiation of the block. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to evaluate the feasibility of continuous LM-TAP blocks in clinical practice in comparison with thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA). DESIGN: A randomised, open-label study. SETTING: University Hospital, London Health Sciences Centre, London, Ontario, Canada from July 2008 to August 2012. PATIENTS: Fifty adult patients undergoing open abdominal surgery via laparotomy were allocated randomly to receive preoperative catheter-congruent TEA or ultrasound-guided continuous bilateral LM-TAP block for 72 h postoperatively. Reasons for noninclusion were American Society of Anesthesiologists' physical status more than 4, known allergy to study drugs, chronic pain/opioid dependence, spinal abnormalities or psychiatric illness. INTERVENTIONS: In the TEA group (n = 24), patient-controlled epidural analgesia was maintained using bupivacaine 0.1% with hydromorphone 10 μg ml⁻¹ after establishment of the initial block. In the LM-TAP group (n = 26), ultrasound-guided LM-TAP catheters were inserted on each side preoperatively after a bolus of 30 ml of ropivacaine 0.5% (20 ml subcostal and 10 ml subumbilical injections on both sides). Analgesia was maintained with an infusion of ropivacaine 0.35% at a rate of 2 to 2.5 ml h⁻¹ through each catheter, along with rescue intravenous patient-controlled analgesia. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was pain score on coughing 24 h after the end of surgery. Secondary outcomes were pain scores from 24 to 72 h, intraoperative and postoperative opioid consumption, time to onset of bowel movement and side effect profiles. RESULTS: Mean [95% confidence interval (95% CI)] pain scores at rest ranged from 1. 7 (0.9 to 2.5) to 2.3 (1.1 to 3.4) in TEA vs. 1.5 (0.7 to 2.2) to 2.2 (1.3 to 3.0) in LM-TAP (P = 0.829). The dynamic pain scores ranged from 2.9 (1.5 to 4.4) to 3.8 (2.8 to 4.8) in TEA vs. 3.3 (2.4 to 4.3) to 3.8 (2.7 to 4.9) in LM-TAP (P = 0.551). The variability in pain scores was lower in the LM-TAP group than in the TEA group in the first 24 h postoperatively. Patient satisfaction and other secondary outcomes were similar. CONCLUSION: Continuous bilateral LM-TAP block can be initiated preoperatively and may provide comparable analgesia to TEA in patients undergoing laparotomy. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRY: not registered because registration was not mandatory at the time of starting the trial.

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)0.002
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.531

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.284
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 designObservational
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

Citations76
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of AnaesthesiologySame topicAnesthesia and Pain ManagementFrench-language works237,207