MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4412351584 · doi:10.1101/2025.07.11.25331342

Intertransverse process block for chronic postsurgical pain in cardiac surgery: protocol for a double-blinded randomized controlled trial

2025· preprint· en· W4412351584 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Man Kin Henry Wong, Ranjith Kumar Sivakumar, Wai Tat Wong, Albert Kam Ming Chan, Zion Ho Sum Yeung, Pik Yu Chen, Mandy H.M. Chu, Randolph H.L. Wong, Kwok M. Ho

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2025
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersChinese University of Hong Kong
KeywordsMedicineProtocol (science)Randomized controlled trialBlock (permutation group theory)Process (computing)Physical therapySurgeryComputer scienceAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction Chronic postsurgical pain (CPSP) after cardiac surgery is a significant concern. Despite the known association between acute pain and CPSP, advanced pain management strategies have not reduced its incidence. Preventing CPSP requires optimizing acute pain control and disrupting central sensitization. The side effects and risks associated with chronic use of current opioid-based cardiac anesthesia necessitate the adoption of multimodal analgesia. Regional anesthesia is a promising alternative, though existing techniques in cardiac surgery have notable limitations. The intertransverse process block (ITPB) is a novel regional technique that offers potential somatic and visceral analgesia. Recent studies demonstrate consistent local anesthetic spread to the intercostal, paravertebral, and epidural spaces, suggesting broader pain control. ITPB may provide a simpler, safer approach in cardiac surgery, reducing the risks of pleural puncture and bleeding. We hypothesize that ITPB will improve pain control, quality of recovery, and health-related quality of life, thereby mitigating chronic postsurgical pain. Methods This is a single-center, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial with intention-to-treat analysis. Elective patients awaiting coronary artery bypass grafting, with or without valvular repair or replacement, will be recruited. Ninety-six participants will be randomly assigned to either ITPB or control group. The ITPB group will receive bilateral ITPBs with 20 ml 0.25% levobupivacaine on each side at the T4-5 level under ultrasound guidance, administered before anesthesia induction. Sham blocks, with equal volume of normal saline, will be performed in the control group. The primary outcome is the quality of recovery, assessed using the 15-item Quality of Recovery questionnaire, at 24 hours after tracheal extubation. Secondary outcomes include Numerical Rating Scale pain scores, patient satisfaction, and opioid consumption within 72 hours post-extubation, duration of mechanical ventilation, length of stay in the ICU and hospital, and opioid-related side effects. The incidence of CPSP at 3, 6, and 12 months will be measured, along with pain interference via the Brief Pain Inventory and the Short-Form McGill Questionnaire-2. Discussion Current pain management strategies often rely heavily on opioids, which can have significant side effects and may not adequately address chronic postsurgical pain. This study investigates the efficacy of the intertransverse process block, a novel regional anesthesia technique, in reducing both acute and chronic postsurgical pain in cardiac surgery. Randomized controlled trials on intertransverse process block in cardiac surgery are limited. The results of this study will help define the role of intertransverse process block in reducing chronic postsurgical pain in cardiac surgical population. Clinical trial registration This trial has been prospectively registered at http://clinicaltrials.gov : NCT06946290

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)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.169

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0060.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0150.005
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0040.001
Research integrity0.0070.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0510.007

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.326 · 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 designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxiv→Same topicCardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical Outcomes→French-language works237,207→