MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2773505446 · doi:10.1213/ane.0000000000002599

Evidence Basis for Regional Anesthesia in Ambulatory Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Part III: Local Instillation Analgesia—A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2017· review· en· W2773505446 on OpenAlexafffund
E. M. Yung, Richard Brull, Éric Albrecht, Girish P. Joshi, Faraj W. Abdallah

Bibliographic record

VenueAnesthesia & Analgesia · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAnesthesia and Pain Management
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of OttawaSt. Michael's HospitalWomen's College HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersUniversity Health Network
KeywordsMedicineAnalgesicAnesthesiaConfidence intervalRandomized controlled trialAmbulatoryOdds ratioMorphineAnterior cruciate ligament reconstructionOutpatient surgeryAnterior cruciate ligamentSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Local infiltration analgesia offers effective postoperative analgesia after knee arthroplasty, but the role of its counterpart, local instillation analgesia (LIA), in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates the analgesic benefits of LIA for outpatient ACLR. METHODS: We sought randomized controlled trials investigating the analgesic effects of LIA versus control in adults having outpatient ACLR and receiving multimodal analgesia (excluding nerve blocks, which are examined in parts I and II of this project). Cumulative postoperative analgesic consumption at 24 hours was designated as a primary outcome. Analgesic consumption during postanesthesia care unit stay, proportion of patients requiring analgesic supplementation, time-to-first analgesic request, rest pain scores during the first 48 hours, hospital length of stay, and incidence of opioid-related side effects were analyzed as secondary outcomes and pooled using random effects modeling. RESULTS: Eleven randomized controlled trials (515 patients) were included. Analgesic consumption was selected as the primary outcome in 4 trials (36%). Compared to control, LIA reduced the 24-hour morphine consumption by a weighted mean difference (95% confidence interval) of -18.0 mg (-33.4 to -2.6) (P = .02). LIA reduced postanesthesia care unit morphine consumption by -55.9 mg (-88.4 to -23.4) (P < .05) and decreased the odds (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]) of analgesic supplementation during the first 24 hours by 0.4 (0.2-0.8) (P = .004). LIA also improved pain scores during the 0-24-hour interval, most notably at 4 hours (-1.6 [-2.2 to -1.0) (P < .00001). CONCLUSIONS: Administering LIA for outpatient ACLR improves postoperative analgesia by decreasing opioid consumption and improving pain control up to 24 hours, with minimal complications. These findings encourage integrating LIA into the care standard for ACLR. Questions regarding the ideal LIA components, location, and role in the setting of hamstring grafts require further research.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.560
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0170.007
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.177
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.189 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations39
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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