Continuous serratus anterior block for sternotomy analgesia after cardiac surgery: a single-centre feasibility study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Moderate-to-severe pain is common after cardiac surgery, peaking during the first and second postoperative days. Several nerve blocks for sternotomy have been described; however, the optimal location for continuous catheters has not been established. This study assessed the feasibility of a larger trial evaluating the efficacy of serratus anterior plane (SAP) catheter analgesia for sternotomy pain. METHODS: This double-blinded trial included patients undergoing cardiac surgery via sternotomy. Bilateral SAP catheters were placed in all participants, and randomised to ropivacaine or placebo. We assessed feasibility based on predetermined endpoints: (1) average recruitment rate >4 per month; (2) protocol adherence rate >90%; (3) primary outcome measurement rate >90%; and (4) significant catheter-related adverse event rate ≤2%. The quality of recovery index (QoR-15) was compared using an independent t-test. RESULTS: Of 52 participants randomised, feasibility data were available for 50. A definitive study was deemed 'not feasible' in our standalone centre owing to a low recruitment rate (2.4 per month) and a high adverse event rate (pneumothorax rate 12%). There were no major protocol deviations but minor deviations in 12% of participants. Pain, opioid consumption, complications, and quality of recovery were not different between groups. Long-term pain at 3 months was low in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: A single-centre trial was deemed not feasible for our setting. With limited data, the quality of recovery was not different with ropivacaine dosing of bilateral SAP catheters for sternotomy pain. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04648774.
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 | 0.022 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".