Day-One Pain Reductions After Hip and Knee Replacement When Buprenorphine-Clonidine-Dexamethasone Is Added to Bupivacaine Nerve/Plexus Blocks: A Randomized Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare pain outcome reports of patients undergoing hip or knee replacement who received single-injection nerve/plexus blocks with plain bupivacaine (BPV) with those of patients who received injections of buprenorphine-clonidine-dexamethasone (BCD) admixed with BPV. DESIGN: Prospective, parallel-arm, randomized, double-blind trial. SETTING: A single veterans' hospital. SUBJECTS: Ninety-eight veterans scheduled for total hip or knee replacement surgery with spinal as the primary anesthetic. METHODS: Participants were randomized to BPV-BCD or plain BPV groups. They underwent nerve/plexus blocks in the L2-L4 and L4-S3 distributions in advance of joint replacement surgery. The primary outcome was change in pain from baseline during the postoperative day, as assessed by the total pain score on the short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire-v2 (SF-MPQ-2). Secondary outcomes were pain during movement, pain interference, range of motion, mobility, and quality of recovery. RESULTS: On postoperative day one, the SF-MPQ-2 total score for the BPV-BCD group demonstrated greater pain reduction than that of the plain BPV group (mean difference 1.8 points, 95% confidence interval 0.6 to 3.0, P = 0.003). The BPV-BCD group also had larger reductions in pain during movement in the surgical joint and less pain interference, along with increased range of hip and knee flexion, compared with the plain BPV group. Outcomes of mobility and quality of recovery were not different between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative BPV-BCD blocks in the L2-L4 and L4-S3 nerve distributions for hip and knee replacements led to less pain on postoperative day one and increased knee and hip range of motion, compared with plain BPV blocks. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT02891798.
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 | 0.047 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".