Epinephrine/Lidocaine Injection Vs. Saline During Endoscopic Sinus Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess the safety and effectiveness of an epinephrine/lidocaine mixture administered by injection versus epinephrine administered topically and to learn its pharmacokinetics following administration to the nasal mucosa. DESIGN: A double-blind randomized controlled trial. METHODS: Patients were assigned into two groups and were injected with either epinephrine 1:100,000 and lidocaine 1% or saline alone during endoscopic nasal surgery under general anesthesia. Pledgets soaked in epinephrine 1:1,000 were used throughout the procedure in both groups. Hemodynamic measurements and catecholamine blood levels were obtained. RESULTS: Ten patients were randomized to the epinephrine group and 12 to the saline group. We were able to measure epinephrine and norepinephrine levels following injection in all patients. Epinephrine levels were similar in both groups immediately after injection; however, 15 minutes following injection, epinephrine was significantly higher in saline-injected patients. Mean arterial pressure and heart rate were affected by epinephrine and norepinephrine levels immediately after injection but were never elevated over the normal range. Heart rate was higher (P < .05) in the saline injected group than in the epinephrine group throughout the measurement period. The surgeons believed that the surgical field was bloodier in saline-injected patients (P < .05) however objective estimation of blood loss showed no difference. CONCLUSIONS: Injection of epinephrine/lidocaine mixture does not produce higher blood levels of epinephrine when compared to saline injection and did not induce any harmful side effects. We postulate that the combination with lidocaine 1% may reduce the patients' stress and thus prevent higher catecholamine levels.
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) | 0.001 | 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 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".