Myotoxic effects of levobupivacaine, bupivacaine and ropivacaine in a rat model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The aim of this study is to histopathalogically compare the myotoxic effects of a single injection of levobupivacaine, bupivacaine and ropivacaine in rat skeletal muscle. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Rats received intramuscular injections of 0.5% bupivacaine (Group B), 0.5% ropivacaine (Group R), 0.5% levobupivacaine (Group L), or 0.9% normal saline (Group SF) (30 rats/group). At two, 10 and 20 days, 10 rats from each group were sacrificed and muscle samples were examined for myotoxic effects using hematoxylin-eosin staining under a light microscope. RESULTS: Muscle damage in Groups B, L and R was similar qualitatively. In samples taken two days after injection, the muscle damage in Group B was maximal [Damage score: 3.0 (2.0-3.0)], Group R had less damage than Group B [damage score: 2.0 (2.0-3.0)] and the damage in Group L was minimal [Damage score: 1.0 (1.0-2.0)]. In muscle samples taken 10 days after injection, there was no significant difference in muscle damage scores among Groups B, R and L. In muscle samples taken 20 days after injection, regeneration was complete, and muscle mass was histologically normal for each of the three groups (B, L and R). CONCLUSION: Levobupivacaine's myotoxic effect is qualitatively similar to that seen (and previously reported) with bupivacaine and ropivacaine. Levobupivacaine was found to be quantitatively less myotoxic than bupivacaine and ropivacaine after a single intramuscular injection, only two days after injection. Myonecrosis developed after a single intramuscular injection of local anesthetic but was completely regenerated by the 20th day after injection.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".