Analgesic efficacy of surgeon placed paravertebral catheters compared with thoracic epidural analgesia after Ivor Lewis esophagectomy: a retrospective non-inferiority study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The Ivor Lewis esophagectomy is an operation that involves a laparotomy and a right thoracotomy, both of which are associated with severe postoperative pain and subsequent impairment of respiratory function. Currently, the accepted "gold standard" for postoperative analgesia for laparotomies and thoracotomies is the thoracic epidural. A systematic review has shown paravertebral blocks to be equivalent to epidural analgesia for post-thoracotomy pain control and have decreased incidence of nausea and vomiting, hypotension and respiratory depression. To our knowledge, the use of the paravertebral catheter (PVC) in open Ivor Lewis esophagectomy has not been formally studied. The primary outcome is the area under the curve (AUC) pain scores in the first 48 hours after surgery. Methods: We performed a retrospective chart review of the open Ivor Lewis esophagectomy patients at our local institution, with local research ethics board (REB) approval. Results: A total of 92 patients were included in this study: 43 patients had a PVC and 49 had a thoracic epidural for postoperative pan control. Overall, the PVC group was non-inferior and statistically equivalent to the epidural group. Time to ambulation in the PVC group was non-inferior compared to epidurals. The PVC group was superior when comparing total opioid consumption. Conclusions: Our retrospective study continues to challenge the role of epidurals as the gold standard of pain control post thoracotomy and laparotomy. Further prospective studies with a larger population are needed to better compare the two modalities.
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".