Comparisons between perioperative continuous femoral nerve block and patient controlled analgesia for analgesia in primary total knee arthroplasty: a Meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To evaluate the efficacy and safety of continuous femoral nerve block (CFNB) versus patient controlled analgesia (PCA) for analgesia in primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) through a Meta-analysis. Methods All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which compared about the efficacy and safety of CFNB versus PCA for analgesia in primary TKA, were searched from Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed, CBM, VIP, Wang Fang database and CNKI. At the same time, conference papers were identified manually. A quality assessment of the included literature was evaluated by Cochrane system evaluation manually. Revman 5.3 software was used for the Meta-analysis to compare visual analogue scale(VAS), hospital for special surgery knee score (HSS), western Ontario and McMaster university of orthopedic index (WOMAC), patient satisfactory degree, and incidences of complications (nausea, vomit, dizziness, somnolence, itch of skin, etc). Results Twenty-four RCTs involving 1896 patients were identified including CFNB (946 cases) and PCA (950 cases) application of TKA. The pooled results illustrated that CFNB could reduce VAS in rest (MD=-1.28, 95%CI-1.56, -1.00, P<0.05) and VAS in movement (MD=-0.98, 95%CI-1.38, -0.58, P<0.05), increase HSS (MD=2.13, 95%CI 0.12, 4.14, P<0.05), reduce WOMAC(MD=-0.97, 95%CI-1.83, -0.11, P<0.05), increase patient satisfactory degree (RR=1.27, 95%CI 1.10, 1.46, P<0.05) and at the same time reduce the incidences of nausea, vomit, dizziness, somnolence and itch of skin (RR=0.32, 95%CI 0.24, 0.43, P<0.05). Conclusion Compared with PCA, CFNB analgesia can reduce VAS, WOMAC score, improve the postoperative HSS and patient satisfaction degree, and decrease the risk of complications. Key words: Arthroplasty, replacement, knee; Randomized controlled trial; Analgesia; Meta-analysis
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 | 0.018 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.023 | 0.068 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".