Postoperative pain management in patients undergoing thoracoscopic repair of pectus excavatum: A retrospective analysis of opioid consumption and adverse effects in adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Although the Nuss procedure provides excellent cosmetic results for the correction of pectus excavatum, the provision of analgesia following such procedures can be challenging. METHODS: The current study retrospectively reviews our experience over a 2.5 year period with thoracic epidural analgesia (TE), paravertebral blockade (PVB), and intravenous opioids delivered via patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) to provide postoperative analgesia. RESULTS: The study cohort included 30 patients (mean age = 15.6 ± 1.5 years), 15 of whom were treated with PCA, 8 with TE, and 7 with PVB. There were no significant differences in pain scores between the 3 groups at any time point during the first 3 postoperative days. Compared to PCA, the PVB group had lower opioid consumption over the first 24 hours of hospitalization by 1.7 mg/kg morphine equivalents (95% CI of difference: 0.1, 3.3; p=0.035); but had higher opioid consumption by 2.0 mg/kg morphine equivalents than the TE group (95% CI of difference: 0.3, 3.7; p=0.024). There were no differences in opioid consumption between PVB and PCA or between PVB and TE at 48 or 72 hours. The number of intraoperative hypotension episodes was significantly lower in the PCA group when compared to the PVB group (p=0.001), with no difference between the PVB and TE groups. CONCLUSIONS: The use of regional anesthesia should be considered a viable option for the relief of postoperative pain in pediatric patients following the Nuss procedure albeit with a higher incidence of intraoperative hemodynamic effects. A randomized, prospective, study powered to compare all 3 techniques against one another would be necessary to confirm the significance of these findings.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".