Effect of perioperative use of parecoxib on chronic post-surgical pain in elderly patients after hepatectomy: a prospective randomized controlled study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chronic post-surgical pain (CPSP) has a negative impact on the recovery, quality of life, and physical functioning of elderly patients. This study aimed to test the superiority of parecoxib vs. placebo in preventing chronic post-hepatectomy pain in elderly patients under combined general-epidural anesthesia. METHODS: A total of 105 elderly patients undergoing hepatectomy under combined general-epidural anesthesia were randomized into the parecoxib or placebo group. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with CPSP 3 months postoperatively. The secondary outcomes included the Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire score in CPSP-positive responders, acute pain intensity, postoperative analgesic demand, inflammatory markers change, and postoperative complications within 28 days. RESULTS: The parecoxib group provided a non-significant absolute 9.1% reduction in the rate of CPSP compared to the placebo group (P = 0.34). The average chronic pain visual analog scale in the parecoxib group was lower than that in the placebo group (P = 0.04). Significantly less moderate-to-severe acute pain at rest (P = 0.04) and with coughing (P < 0.001), less patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) consumption (P = 0.01), and less rescue analgesia (P < 0.001) were observed in the parecoxib group compared to the placebo group. Furthermore, no between-group difference was observed in inflammatory markers (P > 0.05) and postoperative complications (P = 0.65). CONCLUSIONS: Parecoxib reduced the prevalence of CPSP in elderly patients after hepatectomy under combined general-epidural anesthesia from 44.4 to 35.3% with no statistical significance. Moreover, significantly alleviated CPSP intensity and improved acute pain management were observed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was retrospectively registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (URL: http://www.chictr.org.cn/edit.aspx?pid=56961&htm=4 ) on August 3, 2020 ( ChiCTR-2,000,035,198 ).
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".