MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Paravertebral vs. Epidural Analgesia for Liver Surgery (PEALS): Protocol for a randomized controlled pilot study

2022· preprint· en· W4297857993 on OpenAlexaff
Glenio B. Mizubuti, Anthony M.‐H. Ho, Deborah DuMerton, Rachel Phelan, Wilma M. Hopman, Camilyn Cheng, Jessica Xiong, Jessica Shelley, Elorm Vowotor, Sulaiman Nanji, Diederick Jalink, Laís Helena Navarro e Lima

Bibliographic record

VenueF1000Research · 2022
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAnesthesia and Pain Management
Canadian institutionsKingston Health Sciences CentreKingston General HospitalQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePerioperativeAnesthesiaAdverse effectAnalgesicHepatectomyOpioidRandomized controlled trialAnorexiaSurgeryResectionInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Perioperative thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA) is commonly used in hepatectomy patients since it is opioid-sparing and reduces cardiorespiratory complications. However, TEA has a high failure rate and is associated with potentially devastating complications (particularly spinal haematoma) and the risk is likely increased with hepatectomy. Thus, some centres favour systemic opioid-based modalities which, in turn, are associated with inferior analgesia and well-known risks/side-effects. Hence, alternative analgesic methods are desirable. Paravertebral block (PVB) has been used in liver resection with advantages including hemodynamic stability, low failure rates, and low risk of spinal haematoma. Our purpose is to conduct a blinded, pilot RCT with hepatectomy patients randomised to receive TEA or PVB for perioperative analgesia. Our hypothesis is that opioid consumption, time to first analgesic request, and pain scores will be comparable between groups, but PVB patients will require fewer perioperative vasopressors/blood products, and have fewer adverse events and a shorter hospital stay. Methods: With ethics approval, this non-inferiority, pilot RCT with a convenience sample of 50 hepatectomy patients will examine whether PVB imparts analgesia comparable to TEA but with fewer adverse effects. Primary outcomes are surrogates of analgesia for 72 h postoperatively (i.e., opioid consumption, time to first analgesic request and pain scores at rest and with coughing); Secondary outcomes are blood products/fluids administered; side effects/complications until 72 h postoperatively; length of hospital stay. The results will be used to plan a large multicentre trial comparing TEA vs. PVB in hepatectomy patients. This study has a high potential to positively impact the quality/safety of patient care. ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT02909322 (09-21-2016); Available at URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT0290932

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)0.034
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.037
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.076
Threshold uncertainty score0.255

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0340.037
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.005
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0060.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0760.011

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 head0.173
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueF1000ResearchSame topicAnesthesia and Pain ManagementFrench-language works237,207