The effect of longer epidural duration after open pancreaticoduodenectomy on pain and mobilisation: A retrospective single-centre analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The optimal length of epidural use following open pancreaticoduodenectomy has not been defined. The aim of this study was to investigate whether the length of patient-controlled epidural analgesia affected pain and ability to mobilise on epidural termination following open pancreaticoduodenectomy in the context of enhanced recovery after surgery. METHODS: A retrospective single-centre cohort analysis was performed between November 2015 and December 2021 on patients who underwent open pancreaticoduodenectomy. As part of a continual review process of the enhanced recovery after surgery protocol, patient-controlled epidural analgesia duration changed allowing stratification of patients into either three- or five-day patient-controlled epidural analgesia groups. RESULTS: Of the 196 patients identified, 157 were included with 80 (50.9%) and 77 (49.1%) allocated to the three-day and five-day patient-controlled epidural analgesia groups, respectively. Patient-controlled epidural analgesia termination on postoperative day 3 was associated with transiently higher pain and less mobilisation, although no greater rescue analgesia requirement. Conversely, longer patient-controlled epidural analgesia usage following open pancreaticoduodenectomy was associated with less pain and greater mobilisation in the immediate postoperative period. CONCLUSIONS: Earlier patient-controlled epidural analgesia termination transiently leads to increased pain and decreased mobilisation following open pancreaticoduodenectomy. Ensuring appropriate analgesia requirements or longer patient-controlled epidural analgesia usage should be considered to avoid patient discomfort and enhance recovery.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".