Effectiveness of subarachnoid anesthesia with morphine as treatment of postoperative pain in cesarean section
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Foundation: The Postoperative pain is considered time-limited pain, often poorly controlled. Its management requires a great challenge, since postoperative analgesia must provide the mother with adequate control and at the same time facilitate care for the baby. Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of postoperative analgesia with the use of intrathecal morphine. Method: Observational, descriptive and cross-sectional study carried out at the Martín Chang Puga General Teaching Hospital in the Nuevitas municipality, province of Camagüey, between January 2021 and December 2022. The sample was made up of 36 patients to whom subarachnoid anesthesia was applied with Hyperbaric lidocaine plus morphine for cesarean section. Results: The age between 27-31 years predominated, 63.9% of those who underwent cesarean section did not report postoperative pain. Almost half of the sample (47.2%) studied presented side effects with the use of intrathecal morphine, with pruritus predominating. 80.5% of patients were satisfied with postoperative analgesia. Conclusion: The majority of patients found satisfaction with the analgesic treatment despite the presence of adverse effects, so it can be stated that the use of intrathecal morphine is effective in the management of post-cesarean pain.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".