Quality of recovery scores in deep serratus anterior plane block vs. sham block in ambulatory breast cancer surgery: a randomised controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Deep serratus anterior plane block has been widely adopted as an analgesic adjunct for patients undergoing breast surgery, but robust supporting evidence of efficacy is lacking. We randomly allocated 40 patients undergoing simple or partial mastectomy with sentinel node biopsy to receive either a pre-operative deep serratus anterior plane block (serratus group) or a placebo injection (sham group), in addition to systemic analgesia. The primary outcome measure was the quality of recovery score at discharge, as assessed by the quality of recovery-15 questionnaire at various time-points. Secondary analgesic outcomes included: pain severity; postoperative opioid consumption; opioid-related side-effects; patient satisfaction up to 7 days postoperatively; and persistent postoperative pain up to 3 months after surgery. All patients who were recruited completed the study. There were no differences in the quality of recovery-15 scores between patients in the serratus and control groups, with mean (SD) scores of 96 (14) and 102 (20) for the control and serratus groups, respectively. We were also unable to detect differences in any of the secondary analgesic outcomes examined. The addition of a deep serratus anterior plane block to systemic analgesia does not enhance quality of recovery in patients undergoing ambulatory breast cancer surgery.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".