Prospective study on Incidence and Functional Impact of Transient Neurologic Symptoms Associated with 1%Versus 5% Hyperbaric Lidocaine in Short Urologic Procedures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The objectives of this study were to compare the incidence, onset, duration and pain scores of transient neurologic symptoms (TNS) with 1% versus 5% hyperbaric lidocaine in spinal anesthesia for short urological procedures in a large prospective study. This study would also evaluate patient satisfaction, and impact of TNS on functional recovery to assess the clinical significance of TNS. METHODS: This was a multicenter, double-blind, randomized controlled trial. Four hundred fifty-three patients undergoing short transurethral procedures were randomized to receive 1% or 5% hyperbaric lidocaine. Eighty milligrams of 1% or 5% hyperbaric lidocaine was administered. During the first 3 days after surgery, the presence of TNS, its intensity and duration, and patient functional level were recorded. An intention-to-treat analysis was used. RESULTS: There was no difference in the incidence of TNS (21% vs. 18%) between 1% versus 5% lidocaine. Patients with TNS had significantly higher pain scores (5.3 +/- 3 vs. 2.3 +/- 3) than patients without TNS during the first 24 h. This difference in pain scores persisted until 72 h postoperatively. There was a significant difference in the daily activities functional scores (2.2 +/- 1 vs. 1.4 +/- 0.8) of TNS non-TNS patients during the first 24 h postoperatively. CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference in the incidence of TNS between the 1% versus 5% spinal lidocaine groups. Pain scores were higher in patients with TNS than those who did not have TNS. During the first 48 h postop, a small proportion of patients who had TNS experienced functional impairment of walking, sitting, and sleeping.
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".