MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3146136307 · doi:10.36076/ppj.2007/10/707

Priapism — A Rare Complication FollowingContinuous Epidural Morphine andBupivacaine Infusion

2007· article· en· W3146136307 on OpenAlexaff
Xiulu Ruan

Bibliographic record

VenuePain Physician · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAnesthesia and Pain Management
Canadian institutionsCytodiagnostics (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBupivacaineOpioidAnesthesiaLumbarTranscutaneous electrical nerve stimulationClinical trialSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Intraspinal drug delivery (IDD) therapy has been increasingly used in patients with intractable, nonmalignant pain who fail to respond to conventional treatment or can not tolerate systemic opioid therapy due to side effects. By infusing a small amount of analgesics directly into the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) in close proximity to the receptor sites in the spinal cord, one is able to achieve the spinally mediated analgesia, sparing side effects ffrom systemic opioids. Prior to permanent intraspinal pump implantation, an intraspinal opioid screening trial is required to document the efficacy of intraspinal opioid for analgesia. Although there are a few approaches in conducting such screening trials, a patient-controlled continuous epidural morphine infusion trial, performed in an outpatient setting, is widely accepted by many interventional pain specialists. The major advantage of conducting an outpatient functional opioid infusion trial versus an inpatient trial is that it more closely mimics what the patient does in his or her usual activities of daily living, therefore minimizing the false positive rate of the inpatient screening trial. Objective: To describe a rare complication, priapism, observed during an outpatient continuous epidural morphine and bupivacaine infusion trial. Case Report: A 49-year-old male with intractable, chronic low back pain due to diffuse lumbar degenerative disc disease, lumbar spondylosis referred to our clinic for consideration of IDD therapy, after failing to respond to multi-modality pain management including medications, physical therapy with modality, transcutaneous nerve stimulation (TENS), and various interventional procedures. Following a pre-implant psychological evaluation, he was scheduled for the outpatient epidural morphine and bupivacaine infusion trial. A tunneled lumbar epidural a catheter was placed at L3-L4 with the catheter tip advanced to L1 under fluoroscopic guidance. The proximal tip of the catheter was then tunneled, subcutaneously, and connected to a MicrojectTM PCEA pump (Codman, Raynham, MA, USA) and reservoir bag containing preservative-free morphine 0.4 mg/mL and bupivacaine 0.016%. The pump was programmed to deliver a basal rate of 0.5 mL/h. The bolus dose was 0.2 mL with a 60-minute lock out interval. The patient was instructed how to use the pump properly before discharging home. Two hours following the initiation of infusion trial, the patient started to experience penile erection. It was initially painless, but became progressively painful and intensified. The unremitting priapism lasted 8 hours, finally resolving 2 to 3 hours after discontinuing the infusion. The patient recovered fully without any sequelae. Conclusion: Priapism may occur as a rare complication following epidural morphine administration. This report represents the third case report thus far in the literature revealing priapism induced by epidural morphine administration, yet, it is the only report, to our knowledge, describing priapism occurring in a patient undergoing an outpatient epidural morphine and bupivacaine infusion trial. We believe that epidural morphine, rather than bupivacaine, is responsible for causing priapism in this patient, through a yet to be defined spinal mechanism. Key words: Epidural morphine and bupivacaine infusion trial, intraspinal drug delivery pump, priapism

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations10
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePain PhysicianSame topicAnesthesia and Pain ManagementFrench-language works237,207