Morphine infusions after pediatric cranial surgery: a retrospective analysis of safety and efficacy.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Morphine infusions are avoided after cranial surgery in children due to concerns of masking neurological deterioration and because cranial surgery is considered less painful than other surgical procedures. Studies indicate that up to 60% of patients experience moderate to severe pain after craniotomies. Morphine has demonstrated efficacy in the treatment of acute postoperative pain, yet codeine phosphate is commonly preferred as the standard treatment. We assessed the efficacy and safety of intravenous morphine use outside the intensive care unit (ICU) following cranial surgery in children. METHODS: A retrospective case series analysis was conducted of medical records for 71 children. The patients underwent either cranial reconstruction (2002-2007) or supratentorial/infratentorial craniotomies (2005-2007) at British Columbia Children's Hospital. Comparison was made between patients receiving a continuous morphine infusion (CMI) and patients receiving acetaminophen and codeine. Patients were assessed for pain control and adverse events. RESULTS: Thirty-seven children received CMI on the unit (30 cranial reconstruction and seven craniotomy), while 34 (10 cranial reconstruction and 24 craniotomy) received acetaminophen and codeine. There was no statistical difference in pain control. There was a statistically significant difference in nausea on postoperative day one (p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that CMI is as safe a treatment option as acetaminophen and codeine. Careful observation enables nurses to safely administer a CMI for children following cranial surgery on a surgical unit setting.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".