Faculty Opinions recommendation of Intraoperative local infiltration analgesia for early analgesia after total hip arthroplasty: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Objectives: High-volume local infiltration analgesia (LIA) is widely applied as part of a multimodal pain management strategy in total hip arthroplasty (THA). However, methodological problems hinder the exact interpretation of previous trials, and the evidence for LIA in THA remains to be clarified. Therefore, we evaluated whether intraoperative high-volume LIA, in addition to a multimodal oral analgesic regimen, would further reduce acute postoperative pain after THA. Methods: Patients scheduled for unilateral, primary THA under spinal anesthesia were included in this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial receiving high-volume (150 mL) wound infiltration with ropivacaine 0.2% with epinephrine (10 μg/mL) or saline 0.9%. A multimodal oral analgesic regimen consisting of slow-release acetaminophen 2 g, celecoxib 400 mg, and gabapentin 600 mg was instituted preoperatively. Rescue analgesic consisted of oral oxycodone. Pain was assessed repeatedly the first 8 hrs after surgery using the 100-mm visual analog scale. The primary end point was pain during walking (5 m) 8 hrs after surgery. Secondary end points were pain at rest, pain on 45 degrees of passive flexion of the hip with the leg straight, and cumulative consumption of oxycodone. Results: A total of 120 patients were included. Pain during walking (median [interquartile range] [95% confidence interval]) was low in the ropivacaine versus the placebo group (20 [14-38] [0-93] vs 22 [10-40] [0-83]) and did not differ significantly (P = 0.71). Consumption of rescue oxycodone (5 mg [0-10 mg] [0-24 mg] vs 10 mg [0-15 mg] [0-29 mg]) did not differ (P = 0.45). Conclusions: Intraoperative high-volume LIA with ropivacaine 0.2% provided no additional reduction in acute pain after THA when combined with a multimodal oral analgesic regimen consisting of acetaminophen, celecoxib, and gabapentin and is therefore not recommended.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.046 | 0.003 |
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".