MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4285215912 · doi:10.4103/sja.sja_236_22

Perioperative Pain Management in Bariatric Anesthesia

2022· review· en· W4285215912 on OpenAlexaff
Naveen Eipe, Adele S. Budiansky

Bibliographic record

VenueSaudi Journal of Anaesthesia · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAnesthesia and Pain Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePerioperativeAnesthesiaPain managementSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Weight loss (bariatric) surgery is the most commonly performed elective surgical procedure in patients with morbid obesity. In this review, we provide an evidence-based update on perioperative pain management in bariatric anesthesia. We mention some newer preoperative aspects-medical optimization, physical preparation, patient education, and psychosocial factors-that can all improve pain management. In the intraoperative period, with bariatric surgery being almost universally performed laparoscopically, we emphasize the use of non-opioid adjuvant infusions (ketamine, lidocaine, and dexmedetomidine) and suggest some novel regional anesthesia techniques to reduce pain, opioid requirements, and side effects. We discuss some postoperative strategies that additionally focus on patient safety and identify patients at risk of persistent pain and opioid use after bariatric surgery. This review suggests that the use of a structured, step-wise, severity-based, opioid-sparing multimodal analgesic protocol within an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) framework can improve postoperative pain management. Overall, by incorporating all these aspects throughout the perioperative journey ensures improved patient safety and outcomes from pain management in bariatric anesthesia.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.272 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations39
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSaudi Journal of AnaesthesiaSame topicAnesthesia and Pain ManagementFrench-language works237,207