Locally Administered Ketorolac and Bupivacaine for Control of Postoperative Pain in Breast Augmentation Patients: Part II. 10-Day Follow-Up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Previously, it was shown that locally applied intraoperative ketorolac and bupivacaine significantly reduced pain in the recovery room. The objective of this study was to test the effectiveness of the same solution over the first 10 days. METHODS: This study was a prospective, randomized, double-blind clinical trial with ethical approval. Fifty submuscular breast augmentation patients were enrolled, and informed consent was obtained. Standard anesthetic and surgical protocols were followed. Either normal saline or ketorolac and bupivacaine (30 mg and 150 mg, respectively) were placed into the pocket. The power of this study to detect a 20 percent difference was 0.90, and values of p < 0.05 were considered significant. The primary outcome was pain measured with the visual analogue pain scale recorded in a take-home diary. The secondary outcome was codeine usage. RESULTS: Forty-five patients completed the study. Of the patients who did not, three were in the normal saline group (n = 22) and two were in the ketorolac-bupivacaine group (n = 23). The ketorolac-bupivacaine combination significantly reduced pain over the first 5 days. By the tenth day postoperatively, the effect had dissipated. These patients also used less codeine. There were no significant complications. CONCLUSION: Locally applied, intraoperative ketorolac and bupivacaine significantly reduced pain for 5 days after surgery in women who had undergone primary breast augmentation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".