The comparison of caudal ketamine, alfentanil and ketamine plus alfentanil administration for postoperative analgesia in children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Our aim was to compare the effect of single dose caudal ketamine, alfentanil or a mixture of both drugs in the treatment of pain after hypospadias repair surgery in children. METHODS: The group comprised 109 boys, ASA I-II, aged 1-9 years, who were undergoing hypospadias repair surgery as day cases. The children were randomly divided into three groups for postoperative analgesia: group 1, only alfentanil (20 microg x kg(-10) was given caudally; group 2, ketamine (0.5 mg x kg(-1)) alone; and group 3, alfentanil (20 microg x kg(-1))-ketamine (0.5 mg x kg(-1)) was given caudally. The analgesic effect of caudal block was evaluated using the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Pain Scale (CHEOPS) and sedation was assessed using a five-point sedation score. The first analgesic requirement time and the number of supplementary analgesics required by each child in a 24-h period were also recorded. RESULTS: No statistical differences were found in demographic characteristics, haemodynamic and respiratory parameters, objective pain scores, postoperative sedation scores and duration of surgery among the groups. The median time to first analgesia was significantly shorter in group 1 than in groups 2 and 3 (P=0.009, P=0.001). Significantly more patients in group 1 required additional postoperative analgesia (paracetamol 15 mg x kg(-1)) compared with groups 2 and 3 (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Caudal administration of ketamine 0.5 mg.kg-1 with or without alfentanil in children produced satisfactory postoperative analgesia without respiratory depression or other side-effects.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".