Postoperative pain after intrathecal analgesia in laparoscopic liver resection: a retrospective chart review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Intrathecal analgesia (IA) has been recommended by the enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) Society for laparoscopic colon resections; however, although IA is used in open liver resections, it has not been extensively studied in laparoscopic hepatobiliary surgery. This retrospective chart review was undertaken to explore postoperative pain within 48 hours among patients who underwent laparoscopic liver resections (LLR), receiving either IA with or without patient-controlled analgesia (IA±PCA) versus PCA alone. METHODS: , history of chronic pain, and/or history of drug use were excluded. Descriptive statistics used to describe postoperative pain levels at 48 hours by treatment group for each pain outcome. RESULTS: Of 111 patients identified, 79 patients were finally included; 22 patients had IA±PCA and 57 patients had PCA only. There were no statistically significant differences in baseline characteristics, use of non-opioid pain control, and postoperative complications between the two groups. IA use was associated with reduced postoperative opioid consumption (measured in oral morphine equivalents) compared to PCA alone (mean difference [95% confidence interval] -45.92 [-83.10 to -8.75]; P=0.016). CONCLUSIONS: IA has the potential to decrease postoperative opioid use for patients undergoing LLR, and appears to be safe and effective in the setting of LLR. These findings are consistent with the ERAS Society recommendations for laparoscopic colorectal 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".