Thyroidectomy: exactly how painful is it?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The level of pain post-conventional thyroidectomy has been studied from two aspects: the short-term effect of different perioperative analgesics on the pain level and in comparison with endoscopic thyroidectomy. OBJECTIVE: The level of pain experienced post-open thyroidectomy and postoperative long-term analgesia requirements have not been prospectively studied. We have undertaken this study to have a clearer understanding of this issue. We also compared the implication of two different surgical approaches toward the sternothyroid muscle: retraction versus incision on the level of postoperative pain. METHODS: Prospective screening of 53 patients undergoing total thyroidectomy was conducted. Patients received a form containing information as to analgesic drugs taken postoperatively and a self-estimated pain severity scale. RESULTS: The pain level decreased steadily from the first postoperative evening, and the average pain level at the peak was moderate. Most of the patients chose not to use narcotics. In our study population, males, as a trend, reported higher pain levels compared with females and for a longer duration. Sternothyroid muscle division did not increase pain level, the duration of pain, or the pattern of postoperative analgesic requirements. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend that only patients with severe pain, on the first postoperative day, be prescribed mild narcotics in small quantities. All others can be prescribed with a nonnarcotic analgesia. We did not find evidence that sternothyroid muscle splitting causes more pain; hence it should be used at the surgeon's discretion.
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".