Analgesia postoperatoria en donantes vivos de hígado : revisión sistemática de la literatura y meta - análisis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduccion: Existen diversas tecnicas para el manejo de analgesia postoperatoria en los pacientes llevados a hepatectomia como donantes vivos de higado; no obstante no existe claridad sobre cual de las tecnicas analgesicas actuales cuenta con mayor efectividad y menores efectos adversos para el paciente. Objetivo General: Determinar que estrategias analgesicas postoperatorias proveen un adecuado control analgesico del paciente donante vivo de higado llevado a hepatectomia. Materiales y Metodos: Se realizo una revision sistematica de la literatura en las bases de datos Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane, Lilacs, Bireme; las publicaciones seleccionadas tras evaluar los criterios de inclusion y exclusion fueron analizadas utilizando las escalas CONSORT, STROBE JADAD y NOS (Newcastle-Ottawa) para determinar la calidad metodologica. Resultados: Se encontraron 7 publicaciones para analizar, 5 ensayos clinicos controlados y 2 estudios de casos y controles; las publicaciones fueron homogeneas en su diseno metodologico, no se encontraron estrategias superiores a la analgesia peridural, resalta el papel de la adicion de ketorolaco y bloqueo paravertebral como estrategias en los donantes vivos con odds ratio de -3.97 IC (-8.43; 0.48) p: 0.89). Sin embargo, los resultados no fueron estadisticamente significativos. Discusion: En el momento no se encuentra evidencia suficiente para descartar la analgesia peridural como patron de oro, se destaca el papel de las estrategias bloqueo paravertebral y adicion de ketorolaco en el manejo de los pacientes; nuevas investigaciones son requeridas.
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 | 0.039 | 0.119 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".