MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4402767845 · doi:10.1136/rapm-2024-esra.254

EP181 Quality of post-operative analgesia of paravertebral blocks vs thoracic epidurals in patients undergoing vats lobectomies

2024· article· en· W4402767845 on OpenAlexaffabout
Alexa Caldwell, Christopher Durkin, Travis Schisler, Anna McGuire

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAnesthesia and Pain Management
Canadian institutionsVancouver General HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAnesthesiaCardiothoracic surgerySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Please confirm that an ethics committee approval has been applied for or granted: Not relevant Background and Aims Inadequate pain management after VATS lobectomies has been associated with significant morbidity. Thoracic epidurals (TEAs) have classically been the primary modality for post-operative analgesia. However, they are not without significant complications. We investigated if paravertebral blocks (PVBs) provide non-inferior postoperative analgesia while diminishing patients‘ risk of analgesia-related complications. Methods We performed an anonymized prospective chart review of 165 patients undergoing VATS lobectomies with a PVB or a TEA at Vancouver General Hospital with local health authority approval. Postoperative pain scores at rest and with activity, and total opioid consumption, were recorded in the PACU, and on postoperative days 0, 1, and 2. The frequency of hemodynamic and respiratory complications, Foley catheterization, nausea, pruritus, and drowsiness were recorded at the same time intervals. Data were analyzed using a linear mixed model. P-values less than 0.05 were considered to be significant. Results 65 patients received a PVB and 100 patients received a TEA, and the groups did not differ significantly for any studied demographic variable. We did not identify any points in patients’ post-operative courses where pain, at rest and with activity, and total opioid consumption differed significantly between the two patient cohorts. Patients who received TEAs had more complications than those with PVBs, with the greatest differences found in the incidence of hemodynamic complications, pruritis, and Foley catheterization. Conclusions PVBs offer non-inferior analgesia while providing a reduced incidence of analgesia-related complications relative to TEAs in patients undergoing VATS lobectomies. PVBs should thus be considered as an effective analgesic alternative to TEAs in these patients.

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)0.004
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.314 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAnesthesia and Pain Management→French-language works237,207→