Oxycodone is superior to morphine for pain relief following peroral oesophageal myotomy: a prospective, randomized, controlled trial.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Patients underwent peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) for treating achalasia suffered with mild to moderate, sometimes even severe postoperative pain. Aim: To evaluate the efficacy of oxycodone on postoperative analgesia of patients undergoing PEOM. Material and methods: In this prospective, double-blinded, randomized, controlled trial, patients with achalasia were recruited and received 0.08 mg/kg oxycodone or morphine 15 min before the end of the POEM procedure. The short-form McGill questionnaire (SF-MPQ) was used to measure the postoperative pain at 0, 2, 6, 24, and 48 h after surgery, which included the visual analogue scale (VAS), the present pain intensity (PPI) scale, and the pain rating index (PRI). Results: A total of 73 patients were included, of whom 36 received oxycodone, and 37 received morphine. Compared with morphine, patients received oxycodone were associated with lower VAS in the first 24 h postoperatively (1.64 ±0.76 vs. 2.14 ±1.23, p = 0.042) as well as PPI at 2 h (1.11 ±0.40 vs. 2.22 ±0.89, p < 0.001), 6 h (1.42 ±0.55 vs. 2.08 ±0.92, p < 0.001) and 24 h (1.06 ±0.23 vs. 1.30 ±0.46, p = 0.006). Patients who received oxycodone experienced lower sensory McGill pain score than those who received morphine at 2, 6, 24, and 48 h after surgery (p < 0.05). Significantly lowered affective McGill pain score was observed in the oxycodone group at 0, 2, and 24 h postoperatively. Regarding the PRI, the sum of both sensory and affective McGill pain scores, patients with oxycodone therapy were associated with better scores postoperatively. Conclusions: Oxycodone appears to be superior to morphine in dealing with post-POEM pain, which has distinct visceral pain characteristics.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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".