Bilateral Thoracic Paravertebral Blocks Compared to Thoracic Epidural Analgesia After Midline Laparotomy: A Pragmatic Noninferiority Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Bilateral paravertebral block (PVB) is a suitable alternative to thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA) for abdominal surgeries. This randomized clinical trial aims to determine if PVB is noninferior to TEA in terms of analgesia after midline laparotomy. METHODS: Seventy American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class I-III patients undergoing a laparotomy through a midline incision were randomized to receive either TEA (TEA group) or continuous bilateral PVB (PVB group) as a part of a multimodal analgesia regimen in an open-label design. Noninferiority was to be concluded if the mean between-group difference in pain on movement at the 24 postoperative hours was within a margin of 2 points on a 0-10 numerical rating scale (NRS). Pain score at rest and on movement, analgesic consumption, hemodynamics, and adverse events during the first 72 postoperative hours were the secondary outcome measures assessed for superiority. Postblock and steady-state plasma concentrations of ropivacaine and pattern of dye spread were also recorded in the PVB group. RESULTS: The primary outcome of pain scores on movement at 24 postoperative hours was noninferior in PVB group in comparison to TEA group (mean difference [95% confidence interval {CI}], 0.43 [-0.72-1.58]). The pain scores at rest and on movement at other time points of assessment were within clinically acceptable limits in both groups with no significant differences between the groups over time. Arterial plasma ropivacaine levels were within safe limits, while steady-state venous level was higher than an acceptable threshold in 9 of 34 cases. CONCLUSIONS: As a component of multimodal analgesia, bilateral PVB provides noninferior analgesia compared to TEA for midline laparotomy.
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 | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".