MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3174208572 · doi:10.1016/j.bjane.2021.06.006

Comparison of three intraoperative analgesic strategies in laparoscopic bariatric surgery: a retrospective study of immediate postoperative outcomes

2021· article· en· W3174208572 on OpenAlexaff
Leopoldo Muniz da Silva, Anthony M.‐H. Ho, Daniel Rodrigues Oliveira, Arthur de Campos Vieira Abib, Saullo Queiroz Silveira, Anna Beatriz Aranha, Vitor Oliveira André, Patrícia Rennó Pinto, Rafael Souza Fava Nersessian, Glenio B. Mizubuti

Bibliographic record

VenueBrazilian Journal of Anesthesiology (English Edition) · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAnesthesia and Pain Management
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePacuRemifentanilAnesthesiaSufentanilAnalgesicDexmedetomidinePostoperative nausea and vomitingSurgeryVomitingEmergence deliriumNauseaAnestheticPost-anesthesia care unitSevofluranePropofol

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Multimodal Analgesia (MMA) has shown promising results in postoperative outcomes across a broad spectrum of surgeries, including bariatric surgery. We compared the analgesic effect immediately after Laparoscopic Bariatric Surgery (LBS) of the combined effect of MMA and methadone against two techniques that were based mainly on the use of high-potency medium-acting opioids. METHODS: Two hundred seventy-one patients were retrospectively reviewed. The primary outcome was postoperative pain score > 3/10 measured by the Verbal Numeric Scale (VNS) during the Postanesthetic Care Unit (PACU) stay. The three protocols of intraoperative analgesia were: (P1) sufentanil at anesthetic induction followed by remifentanil infusion; (P2) sufentanil at induction followed by dexmedetomidine infusion; and (P3) remifentanil at induction followed by MMA including dexmedetomidine, magnesium, lidocaine, and methadone. Only P1 and P2 patients received morphine toward the end of surgery. Poisson regression was used to adjust confounding factors and calculate Prevalence Ratio (PR). RESULTS: Postoperative VNS > 3 was recorded in 135 (49.81%) patients, of which 93 (68.89%) were subjected to P1, 25 (18.56%) to P2, and 17 (12.59%) to P3. In the final adjusted model, both anesthetic techniques (P3) (PR = 0.10; 95% CI [0.03-0.28]), and (P2) (PR = 0.42%; 95% CI [0.20-0.90]) were associated with lower occurrence of VNS > 3, whereas age range 20-29 was associated to higher occurrence of VNS > 3 (PR = 3.21; 95% CI [1.22-8.44]) in PACU. Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting (PONV) was distributed as follows: (P1) 20.3%, (P2) 31.25% and (P3) 6.77%; (P3 < P1, P2; p < 0.05). Intraoperative hypotension occurred more often in P3 (39%) compared to P2 (20.31%) and P1 (17.46%) (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: MMA + methadone was associated with higher incidence of intraoperative hypotension and lower incidence of moderate/severe pain in PACU after LBS.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.881

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrazilian Journal of Anesthesiology (English Edition)Same topicAnesthesia and Pain ManagementFrench-language works237,207