MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4287854574 · doi:10.21037/atm-22-3522

Effect of intravenous lidocaine on chronic postoperative pain in patients undergoing breast cancer surgery: a prospective, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial

2022· article· en· W4287854574 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ming Xia, Qingfeng Wei, Qin Zhang, Hong Jiang

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Translational Medicine · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAnesthesia and Pain Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersXuzhou Medical UniversityShanghai Jiao Tong University
KeywordsMedicineLidocaineBreast cancerPlaceboAnesthesiaRandomized controlled trialClinical trialSurgeryDouble blindProspective cohort studyPostoperative painCancerInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Chronic postoperative pain (CPSP) is one of the common complications of breast cancer patients, which can seriously affect the quality of life and long-term prognosis of patients. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether perioperative intravenous lidocaine infusion could reduce the incidence of CPSP in patients with breast cancer. Methods: Female patients undergoing radical breast cancer surgery were randomly assigned to the 2% lidocaine group (L) and the control group (S). group L received an intravenous infusion of 1.5 mg/kg lidocaine 10 minutes prior to induction, followed by a continuous infusion of 2 mg/kg/h until the end of surgery. The control group received an equal amount of saline. The primary outcome was the incidence of CPSP at 3 months. Secondary outcomes included VAS pain scores and frequency of remedial analgesia within 24 hours postoperatively; incidence of CPSP at 1 and 6 months; and scores on the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), Simplified McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ), and Neuropathic Pain Score (DN-4) at 1, 3, and 6 months postoperatively. Results: Eighty-two patients participated in this study. A total of 78 patients completed the 3-month postoperative follow-up (39 in group S and 39 in group L). At 3 months, the incidence of CPSP was significantly lower in the L group than in the S group (33.3% in the S group and 12.8% in the L group, P=0.032). Pain scores at rest and during exercise were significantly lower in the L group than in the S group at different time points (P≤0.001 and P<0.001). The need for remedial analgesia at 24 hours postoperatively also differed significantly between the two groups (P=0.036). At 6 months, the incidence of CPSP was also lower in the L group than in the S group (29.7% in the S group and 10.5% in the L group, P=0.038). The differences in SF-MPQ scores were statistically significant at both 3 and 6 months postoperatively (P=0.022, P=0.037). Conclusions: Intravenous infusion of lidocaine reduces the incidence of CPSP in breast cancer patients at 3 and 6 months and is effective in relieving acute postoperative pain. Trial Registration: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ChiCTR2100050445.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.719

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.049
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.318 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations9
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of Translational MedicineSame topicAnesthesia and Pain ManagementFrench-language works237,207