MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4386291404 · doi:10.5489/cuaj.8344

Prospective evaluation of postoperative pain and opioid use after minor urologic surgery

2023· article· en· W4386291404 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Bonnie Liu, Joseph Moryousef, Kevin Feng, Jeffrey Campbell

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Urological Association Journal · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOpioid Use Disorder Treatment
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOpioidMedical prescriptionProspective cohort studyMorphineAnesthesiaPatient satisfactionSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Filling an opioid prescription after a minor urologic procedure increases patient risk of overdose and misuse. Strategies to reduce the number of opioids reaching the community are critical. This study evaluates opioid use after minor urologic procedures at a Canadian academic center and guides future prescribing recommendations. METHODS: We prospectively evaluated patients over 18 years old undergoing minor urologic procedures (penile, scrotal, urethral, etc.) from September 2020 to May 2022. Consenting participants were given a pain diary and postoperative pain questionnaire. Patients on chronic pain medications or those who had major surgery within six months were excluded. Response rate, pain on visual analog scale, pain control satisfaction, quantity of opioids prescribed, and consumption of opioid and non-opioid medication were collected and analyzed. RESULTS: Ninety-five patients met the inclusion criteria. The mean age was 61.7 years (range 20- 87) and 96% of patients identified as male. The response rate for the opioid diary and pain questionnaire was 57%. Forty-two patients (78%) were offered an opioid prescription following their surgery, but only 12 of those patients (22%) filled and consumed any opioids analgesics. Forty-two patients (78%) used no postoperative opioids, and the mean oral morphine equivalents (OME) consumed was 5.87 (standard deviation 16.7). There was a total of 259 OME unused from post-procedure prescriptions. The mean overall pain score for patients who did and did not fill opioid prescriptions were 3.18/10 and 1.79/10 (p<0.01), respectively, with mean overall pain management satisfaction score of 8.63/10 and 8.58/10 (p=0.94), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients undergoing minor urologic procedures do not require opioids to manage postoperative pain. Based on our data, we suggest that a prescription for 39 OME would adequately treat postoperative pain in 95% of patients undergoing minor urologic procedures. Education around pain management with non-narcotic modalities is imperative, and practice changes are warranted to address the opioid crisis within our specialty.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.131
Threshold uncertainty score0.261

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Urological Association Journal→Same topicOpioid Use Disorder Treatment→French-language works237,207→