Selective Spinal Anesthesia Versus Desflurane Anesthesia in Short Duration Outpatient Gynecological Laparoscopy: A Pharmacoeconomic Comparison
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: We compared the cost and effectiveness of selective spinal anesthesia (SSA) with a desflurane-based general anesthetic (DES) for outpatient gynecological laparoscopy. A prospective analysis was undertaken of 10 patients randomized to receive SSA and compared with 10 patients randomized to receive DES. The groups were well matched in their demographic characteristics. The mean cost (in 2000 Canadian dollar values) of anesthesia supplies, drugs, and nursing for the SSA group of $62.31 was less than that for the DES group of $92.31 (P < 0.01). Recovery costs of both groups were similar. Time to administer anesthesia and time spent in the postanesthetic care unit were also similar. Postoperative analgesia was required by 50% of the DES group but in no patient receiving SSA (P < 0.01). SSA is a cost-effective alternative to DES in these patients. IMPLICATIONS: Small-dose spinal anesthesia is an effective alternative to a desflurane general anesthetic in terms of cost and recovery profiles in ambulatory gynecological laparoscopy.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".