Efficacy and Safety of Patient-controlled Analgesia Compared With Epidural Analgesia After Open Hepatic Resection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) to epidural analgesia in adults undergoing open hepatic resection. BACKGROUND: Effective pain management in patients undergoing open hepatic resection is often achieved with epidural analgesia. However, associated risks have prompted investigation of alternative analgesic methods in this patient population. METHODS: A comprehensive systematic literature review via Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane databases from inception until December 2, 2017 was conducted, followed by meta-analysis. Abstract and full-text screening, data extraction, and quality assessment were conducted by 2 investigators. Odds ratios (OR), mean differences (MD), and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using RevMan 5.3. RESULTS: Four randomized controlled trials with 278 patients were identified. All studies compared the use of PCA to epidural, with differing regimens. Pooled MD and 95% confidence interval for pain score were higher for PCA at rest 24 hours postoperatively (0.59 [0.30, 0.88]), and with movement at 48 hours postoperatively (0.95 [0.31, 1.60]. Pooled MD for hospital length of stay was 1.23 days (-2.72, 5.19). Pooled OR was 0.68 (0.36, 1.3) and 0.24 (0.04, 1.36) for overall and analgesia-related complications, respectively. Need for blood transfusion had a pooled OR of 1.14 (0.31, 4.18). CONCLUSIONS: Epidural analgesia was observed to be superior to PCA for pain control in patients undergoing open hepatic resection, with no significant difference in hospital length of stay, complications, or transfusion requirements. Thus, epidural analgesia should be the preferred method for the management of postoperative pain in this patient population.
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 | 0.013 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".