Effect of balanced anaesthesia with and without modified pectoralis nerve block on postoperative analgesia after breast surgeries: A randomised controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Aims: Modified pectoral nerve block (PEC) has been reported to have variable effects on perioperative pain in patients undergoing surgery for carcinoma breast. This randomised controlled trial was conducted to study the effect of modified PEC on postoperative pain relief in patients undergoing breast surgery. Methods: Fifty patients with carcinoma breast undergoing breast surgery were randomised to receive a modified PEC block consisting of 30 ml of ropivacaine 0.2% after induction of anaesthesia (PEC group) or no block (GA group) in this prospective randomised trial. Time to first rescue analgesia was recorded as primary outcome. Other secondary outcomes recorded were postoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) scores, number of rescue boluses and 24-h fentanyl consumption. Results: There was no significant difference in time to first rescue analgesia between the two groups, with mean difference (95% confidence interval) of 22.91 (−6.8 to 52.69) min. Amount of fentanyl required to keep pain VAS less than 3 was also comparable between the two groups, mean (standard deviation) of 42.0 μg (17.42) in GA group versus 43.24 μg (17.22) in PEC group; P = 0.830.20/25 patients required rescue analgesia in GA group as compared to 17/25 in PEC group ( P = 0.334). The postoperative VAS scores were also comparable between the groups at all time intervals. Conclusion: Balanced anaesthesia supplemented with modified PEC block performed after general anaesthesia did not improve the postoperative pain in patients undergoing modified radical mastectomy.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".