Bloqueio PECS I para analgesia pós‐operatória em pacientes submetidos a mamoplastia de aumento: estudo randomizado, duplo‐cego, controlado por placebo
Bibliographic record
Abstract
O bloqueio PECS I foi descrito pela primeira vez para cirurgia envolvendo os músculos peitorais. Nenhum estudo clínico randomizado foi realizado em procedimentos envolvendo diretamente os músculos peitorais, como a mamoplastia de aumento submuscular. Nossa hipótese foi de que o bloqueio PECS I diminuiria a dor pós‐operatória nessa população. Realizamos estudo randomizado, duplo‐cego, controlado por placebo em mulheres submetidas à mamoplastia de aumento submuscular. Realizamos o bloqueio PECS I com 0,4 mL.kg‐1 de solução salina a 0,9% de um lado e bupivacaína (0,25%) do outro lado, sendo cada paciente seu próprio controle. Os escores da Escala de Avaliação Numérica (EAN) de dor (0 − 10) foram obtidos em repouso e durante movimento. O desfecho primário foi o escore de dor em repouso 30 minutos após a chegada à SRPA. Para detectar uma diferença clinicamente significante de 50% na redução da dor, 14 voluntárias foram incluídas (poder de 90% e alfa < 0,05). Na SRPA, três pacientes não apresentaram diferença na dor entre os lados, cinco relataram menos dor no lado do placebo e seis, menos dor no lado da bupivacaína. No grupo bupivacaína, os escores de dor em repouso aos 5, 30 e 60 minutos e 24 horas foram 4,89 (4,23 − 5,56; IC médio 95%), 3,75 (3,13 − 4,37), 3,79 (2,93 − 4,64) e 2,29 (1,56 − 3,01), respectivamente, enquanto no grupo placebo foram 4,96 (4,32 − 5,60), 4,00 (3,50 − 4,49), 3,93 (3,12 − 4,73) e 2,29 (1,56 − 3,01), respectivamente. O bloqueio PECS I em pacientes submetidas a mamoplastia de aumento não oferece melhor alívio da dor do que o placebo. Portanto, as indicações para bloqueio de PECS I na cirurgia de aumento de mama devem ser reconsideradas. PECS I block was first described for surgery involving the pectoralis muscles. No randomized clinical trial has been conducted on surgeries that directly involve these muscles, such as subpectoral breast augmentation. We hypothesized that PECS I block would decrease pain in the postoperative period in this population. This was a randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled trial in women undergoing subpectoral breast augmentation surgery. PECS I block was performed using 0.4 mL.kg‐1 of 0.9% saline on one side and bupivacaine (0.25%) on the other side, each patient being her own control. Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) pain scores (0 − 10) were measured at rest and during movement. The primary outcome was pain score at rest 30 minutes after arrival in the PACU. To detect a clinically significant difference of 50% in pain reduction, 14 volunteers were enrolled (power of 90% and alpha < 0.05). In the PACU, three patients had no difference in pain between sides, five had reduced pain on the placebo side, and six had reduced pain on the bupivacaine side. In the bupivacaine group, pain scores at rest at 5, 30 and 60 minutes and 24 hours were 4.89 (4.23 − 5.56; mean 95% CI), 3.75 (3.13 − 4.37), 3.79 (2.93 − 4.64), and 2.29 (1.56 − 3.01), respectively, whereas in the placebo group, they were 4.96 (4.32 − 5.60), 4.00 (3.50 − 4.49), 3.93 (3.12 − 4.73), and 2.29 (1.56 − 3.01), respectively. PECS I block in patients undergoing breast augmentation surgery does not provide better pain relief than placebo. Therefore, the indications for PECS I block in breast augmentation surgery should be reconsidered.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".