Continuous Bupivacaine Infusion Post-Iliac Crest Bone Graft Harvesting in Pediatric Cleft Surgery: Role and Comparison with Ketorolac
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the use of intravenous ketorolac and iliac crest bupivacaine infusion in the management of iliac crest donor-site pain in the pediatric cleft population. The null hypothesis was there is no difference with respect to pain scores between ketorolac and iliac crest bupivacaine infusion as analgesic adjuncts to intravenous opioids. METHODS: A total of 54 children and adolescents (27 boys, 27 girls) undergoing alveolar cleft repair or Le Fort I osteotomy were assigned randomly in a prospective, single-blinded fashion to one of three groups: intravenous ketorolac plus iliac crest normal saline infusion, intravenous ketorolac plus iliac crest bupivacaine infusion, or iliac crest bupivacaine infusion alone. Iliac crest infusions and ketorolac were administered for 48 hours or until discharge, whichever occurred first. All patients received morphine via a patient-controlled analgesia device. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Primary outcome was pain score, and secondary outcomes were morphine consumption and satisfaction scores. RESULTS: Pain scores, morphine consumption, and satisfaction scores were not significantly different among groups. Estimated costs were significantly higher for bupivacaine infusion than intravenous ketorolac. CONCLUSIONS: Iliac crest donor-site pain is well managed in this patient population. Intravenous ketorolac and iliac crest bupivacaine infusion provide comparable analgesia for iliac crest bone graft donor-site pain in children and adolescents.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".