MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3005290716 · doi:10.1111/anae.14996

Peri‐articular infiltration analgesia for shoulder surgery: a systematic review and meta‐analysis

2020· review· en· W3005290716 on OpenAlexaff
E. M. Yung, Neil Patel, Richard Brull, Faraj W. Abdallah

Bibliographic record

VenueAnaesthesia · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAnesthesia and Pain Management
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of OttawaWomen's College HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAnesthesiaAnalgesicPlaceboNauseaShoulder surgeryMorphinePerioperativeBrachial plexusInfiltration (HVAC)SurgeryRandomized controlled trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Effective analgesic alternatives to interscalene brachial plexus block are sought for shoulder surgery. Peri-articular infiltration analgesia is a novel, less invasive technique, but evidence surrounding its use is unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate the utility of peri-articular infiltration analgesia in shoulder surgery. We searched literature for trials comparing peri-articular infiltration analgesia with control or with interscalene brachial plexus block. Control groups received no intervention, placebo or systemic opioids. The primary outcome was cumulative oral morphine equivalent consumption during the first 24 h postoperatively. Secondary outcomes included: rest pain scores up to 48 h; risk of side-effects; and durations of post-anaesthetic care unit and hospital stay. Data were pooled with random-effects modelling. Seven trials (383 patients) were included. Compared with control, peri-articular infiltration analgesia reduced 24-h oral morphine consumption by a mean difference (95%CI) of -38.0 mg (-65.5 to -10.5; p = 0.007). It also improved pain scores up to 6 h, 36 h and 48 h, with the greatest improvement observed at 0 h (-2.4 (-2.7 to -1.6); p < 0.001). Peri-articular infiltration analgesia decreased postoperative nausea and vomiting by an odds ratio (95%CI) of 0.3 (0.1-0.7; p = 0.006). In contrast, peri-articular infiltration analgesia was not different from interscalene brachial plexus block for analgesic consumption, pain scores or side-effects. This review provides moderate evidence supporting peri-articular infiltration for postoperative analgesia following shoulder surgery. The absence of difference between peri-articular infiltration analgesia and interscalene brachial plexus block for analgesic outcomes suggests that these interventions are comparable, but further trials are needed to support this conclusion and identify the optimal peri-articular infiltration technique.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0160.029
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.257 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
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

Citations8
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnaesthesiaSame topicAnesthesia and Pain ManagementFrench-language works237,207