The analgesic effects of ropivacaine in ilioinguinal-iliohypogastric nerve block in children--concentration or volume?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of the present study was to compare the analgesic effects of ripovacaine when used as high concentration/small volume, versus its use as high volume/low concentration, in ilioinguinal-iliohypogastric nerve block in children. METHODS: This is a prospective single-blind randomized study consisting of 72 children ASA I & II, 3-9 years of age, scheduled for outpatient elective surgery. Children were randomly assigned into two equal groups (36 each), to receive ropivacaine 0.8 mg.kg(-1), for ilioinguinal-iliohypogastsric block, either as: 1 mg.ml(-1) (0.8 ml.kg(-1)) G1 group, or 2 mg.ml(-1) (0.4 ml.kg(-1)) G2 group. The postoperative pain was assessed using the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Pain Scale (CHEOPS), at the end of surgery (H0), at one (H1), tow (H2), four (H4) and six (H6) postoperative hours. Parents were requested to record their child's pain every 6 hours during the first 24 postoperative hours, using the postoperative pain measurement for Parent Scale. RESULTS: CHEOPS score H0 was significantly lower in G2 as compared to G1 group (p = 0.03). Only 2 children in G2 as compared to 8 children in G1 group, required i.v. paracetamol administration after surgery (p = 0.04). In group G1, two children required paracetamol at home and three developed a postoperative transitory femoral nerve block (p = 0.23). CONCLUSIONS: Ropivacaine when used with high concentration/small volume is more efficient than when used a high volume/low concentration, for ilioinguinal-iliohypogastric nerve block in children.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".