Sustained-release opioid following open abdominal urologic surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Despite increased risk of adverse events and overdose associated with sustained-release opioids, evidence is lacking to support the short-term use of a low-dose, sustained-release opioid for acute pain control in a monitored setting. Both immediate-release and sustained-release opioids are used clinically in postoperative analgesia. We hypothesized that short-term use of low-dose, sustained-release hydromorphone combined with immediate-release hydromorphone as required would facilitate earlier ambulation after major urologic surgeries compared to immediate-release opioids alone. METHODS: Following ethics approval and patient consent, patients undergoing elective open abdominal urologic surgeries were randomized into two groups: sustained-release hydromorphone on a regular basis for two days, with immediate-release hydromorphone available on an as-required basis; or immediate-release hydromorphone on an as-required basis only. The primary outcome measure was the time to get up and walk three steps. RESULTS: A total of 66 participants were included in the data analysis. There was no statistically significant difference in the time to first mobilization, opioid consumption, or pain scores at any time point between the two groups. There were trends toward more nausea on postoperative days 1, 2, and 3, as well as more severe loss of sleep the first night after surgery in the immediate-release group, although the differences did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: Our study showed that patients receiving short-term, low-dose, sustained-release hydromorphone immediately postoperatively did not mobilize sooner compared to those only receiving immediate-release hydromorphone. There was no difference in the pain score or opioid consumption.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".