Evaluating the Efficacy of Two Regional Pain Management Modalities in Autologous Breast Reconstruction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: At our institution, multimodal opiate-sparing pain management is the cornerstone of our enhanced recovery program for autologous breast reconstruction. The purpose of this study was to compare postoperative outcomes and pain control metrics following implementation of an enhanced recovery program with two different regional analgesia approaches. Methods: This retrospective cohort study identified 145 women who underwent autologous breast reconstruction from 2015 to 2017. Three groups were included: historical control patients (n = 46) and enhanced recovery patients that received multimodal pain management including a postoperative transversalis abdominis plane block with either a continuous local anesthetic catheter (n = 60) or a single-shot of liposomal bupivacaine (n = 39). The primary outcome was pain scores in the first three postoperative days. Secondary outcomes were opioid consumption in oral morphine equivalents and length of stay. Results: Postoperative pain scores were similar across all three groups until postoperative day 3. Length of stay was significantly shorter in both of the enhanced recovery cohorts (3.0 [3.0, 4.0]) compared with control patients (4.0 [4.0, 5.0], P < 0.001). Likewise, average total oral morphine equivalents consumption was significantly reduced in enhanced recovery patients (continuous catheter 215.9 (95% CI, 165.4–266.3); liposomal bupivacaine 211.0 (95% CI, 154.8–267.2); control 518.4 (95% CI 454.2–582.7), P < 0.001). Neither length of stay (P = 0.953), nor oral morphine equivalents consumption (P = 0.883) differed by type of regional analgesia. Conclusion: Compared with control patients, both approaches to regional transversalis abdominis plane block analgesia as part of an opiate-sparing enhanced recovery pain management strategy were successful, but neither superior to the other.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".