Ultrasound-guided erector spinae plane catheter versus video-assisted paravertebral catheter placement in minimally invasive thoracic surgery: comparing continuous infusion analgesic techniques on early quality of recovery, respiratory function and chronic persistent surgical pain: study protocol for a double-blinded randomised controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Compared to conventional thoracotomy, minimally invasive thoracic surgery (MITS) can reduce postoperative pain, reduce tissue trauma and contribute to better recovery. However, it still causes significant acute postoperative pain. Truncal regional anaesthesia techniques such as paravertebral and erector spinae blocks have shown to contribute to postoperative analgesia after MITS. Satisfactory placement of an ultrasound-guided thoracic paravertebral catheter can be technically challenging compared to an ultrasound-guided erector spinae catheter. However, in MITS, an opportunity arises for directly visualised placement of a paravertebral catheter by the surgeon under thoracoscopic guidance. Alongside with thoracic epidural, a paravertebral block is considered the "gold standard" of thoracic regional analgesic techniques. To the best of our knowledge, there are no randomised controlled trials comparing surgeon-administered paravertebral catheter and anaesthesiologist-assisted erector spinae catheter for MITS in terms of patient-centred outcomes such as quality of recovery. METHODS: This trial will be a prospective, double-blinded randomised controlled trial. A total of 80 eligible patients will be randomly assigned to receive either an anaesthesiologist-assisted ultrasound-guided erector spinae catheter or a surgeon-assisted video-assisted paravertebral catheter, in a 1:1 ratio following induction of general anaesthesia for minimally assisted thoracic surgery. Both groups will receive the same standardised analgesia protocol for both intra- and postoperative periods. The primary outcome is defined as Quality of Recovery (QoR-15) score between the two groups at 24 h postoperative. Secondary outcomes include assessment of chronic persistent surgical pain (CPSP) at 3 months postoperative using the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) Short Form and Short Form McGill (SF-15) questionnaires, assessment of postoperative pulmonary function, area under the curve for Verbal Rating Score for pain at rest and on deep inspiration versus time over 48 h, total opioid consumption over 48 h, QoR-15 at 48 h, and postoperative complications and morbidity as measured by the Comprehensive Complication Index. DISCUSSION: Despite surgical advancements in thoracic surgery, severe acute postoperative pain following MITS is still prevailing. This study will provide recommendations about the efficacy of an anaesthesia-administered ultrasound-guided erector spinae catheter or surgeon-administered, video-assisted paravertebral catheter techniques for early quality of recovery following MITS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04729712 . Registered on 28 January 2021. All items from the World Health Organization Trial Registration Data Set have been included.
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 | 0.013 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.037 | 0.007 |
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".