MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3112865410 · doi:10.1213/ane.0000000000005305

Phrenic Nerve Block at the Azygos Vein Level Versus Sham Block for Ipsilateral Shoulder Pain After Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial

2020· article· en· W3112865410 on OpenAlexaff
Kaori Kuroiwa, Yuki Shiko, Yohei Kawasaki, Yoshitaka Aoki, Masaaki Nishizawa, Susumu Ide, Kentaro Miura, Nobutaka Kobayashi, Herman Sehmbi

Bibliographic record

VenueAnesthesia & Analgesia · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAnesthesia and Pain Management
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAnesthesiaRopivacaineSurgeryRandomized controlled trialNerve blockNausea

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Ipsilateral shoulder pain (ISP) is a common problem after pulmonary surgery. We hypothesized that phrenic nerve block (PNB) at the azygos vein level, near the location of the surgical operation, would be effective for reducing ISP. Our primary aim was to assess the effect of PNB on postoperative ISP, following video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS). METHODS: This prospective, randomized, patient-blinded, single-institution trial was registered at the University Hospital Medical Information Network (UMIN000030464). Enrolled patients had been scheduled for VATS under general anesthesia with epidural analgesia. Patients were randomly allocated to receive infiltration of the ipsilateral phrenic nerve at the azygos vein level with either 10 mL of 0.375% ropivacaine (PNB group) or 0.9% saline (control group) before chest closure. Postoperative ISP was assessed using a numerical rating scale (NRS, 0-10) at rest at 2, 4, 8, 16, and 24 hours. The incidence of ISP was defined as the proportion of patients who reported an NRS score of ≥1 at least once within 24 hours after surgery. In the primary analysis, the proportion of patients with ISP was compared between PNB and control groups using the χ2 test. NRS values of ISP and postoperative incision pain within 24 hours were investigated, as was the frequency of postoperative analgesic use. Incision pain was assessed using an NRS at the time of ISP assessment. Finally, the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting and shoulder movement disorders were also evaluated. RESULTS: Eighty-five patients were included, and their data were analyzed. These patients were randomly assigned to either PNB group (n = 42) or control group (n = 43). There were no clinically relevant differences in demographic and surgical profiles between the groups. There was no significant difference in the incidence of ISP (the control group 20/43 [46.5%] versus the PNB group 14/42 [33.3%]; P = .215). The severity of ISP was lower in the PNB group than in the control group (linear mixed-effects model, the main effect of treatment [groups]: P < .001). There were no significant differences between groups in terms of postoperative incision pain. The frequency of postoperative analgesic use was significantly higher in the control group (Wilcoxon rank sum test, P < .001). Postoperative nausea and vomiting did not significantly differ between the 2 groups. There were no changes in the range of shoulder joint movement. CONCLUSIONS: Azygos vein level PNB did not significantly affect the incidence of ISP after VATS.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.049
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations11
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnesthesia & AnalgesiaSame topicAnesthesia and Pain ManagementFrench-language works237,207