A randomized controlled trial investigating rectus sheath catheters following radical cystectomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether rectus sheath catheter (RSC) insertion may be an alternative to thoracic epidural (TE). PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a non-blinded, single-centre, non-inferiority study, patients undergoing open radical cystectomy were randomized 1:1 to receive either a TE or surgically placed RSC. The primary endpoint was cumulative opiate use (median oral morphine equivalent [OME]) in the first 72 h postoperatively. Secondary outcomes included visual analogue scale pain scores, measures of postoperative recovery including mobility and time to regular diet, and complications. RESULTS: Ninety-seven patients were randomized (51 TE, 46 RSC). The median OME was 103 (77.5-132.5) mg in the TE arm and 161.75 (117.5-187.5) mg in the RSC arm. A Mann-Whitney U-test confirmed non-inferiority of RSC to TE at a threshold of 15 mg OME (P = 0.002). When comparing pain scores for the first three postoperative days, an early difference was observed that favoured the TE group during post-anaesthesia care unit stay, which was lost after postoperative day 1. Patient satisfaction with analgesia on the third postoperative day was similar in the two arms (P = 0.47). There were no statistically significant differences between arms with respect to the other secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The outcomes from this prospective randomized trial demonstrated non-inferiority of RSC insertion compared to TE with respect to 72-h opiate use. Patient satisfaction with pain control on postoperative day 3 was the same for each group.
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 | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".