Differences in Analgesia Methods for Open Gastrointestinal Surgery Are Not Associated With Initial Postoperative Ambulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: A characteristic of modern medical care is the reduction in the length of hospital stay, and several facilities across Japan are working towards this goal. The presence of postoperative pain is correlated with the number of days to hospital discharge. Therefore, this study investigated the relationship between the analgesic methods used in clinical practice and the initial ambulation of postoperative laparotomy patients with severe postoperative worked incisional pain to enable better analgesic management in the future. Methods: This retrospective study collected information from the medical records of 117 patients who underwent laparotomy between December 1, 2019, and October 13, 2020, at the Department of Gastroenterology of the International University of Health and Welfare Mita Hospital. Based on the failure or success of the ambulation process, the patients were divided into the delayed and successful groups, respectively. Results: In the delayed group, patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) was used in 32 patients, intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IV-PCA) was used in two patients, continuous worked incisional infiltration anesthesia was used in one patient, and transvenous acetaminophen was used in one patient for postoperative analgesia. In the successful group, PCEA was used in 66 patients, IV-PCA was used in 11 patients, continuous worked incisional infiltration anesthesia was used in three patients, and acetaminophen administered intravenously at patient's request was used in one patient (P = 0.094). Conclusions: No significant differences were observed between different postoperative analgesia methods, suggesting that there may be no association between postoperative ambulation and the postoperative analgesia method.
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".