The effect of propofol lipuro with and without lidocaine on injection pain in children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Despite advantages of propofol use such as providing a good anesthesia and rapid recovery; pain due to intravenous propofol injection continues to be a problem. The aim of this study was to compare the effects of generic propofol and propofol lipuro with and without lidocaine on injection pain in children. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study performed between 01 December 2009 and 16 May 2010. A total of 120 children, who planned to undergo elective surgery under general anesthesia, were included in four groups of 30 in a prospectively, randomized and double-blind study. Generic propofol was given to first and second groups and propofol lipuro was given to third and fourth groups. In addition to propofol, lidocaine was given to second and fourth groups. Injection pain was assessed using Ontario Children's Hospital Pain Scale (mCHEOPS). RESULTS: No differences were found in the mean age, weight and given dose of propofol administered between all groups (P>0.05). Double comparison of groups revealed no significant difference in pain scores between Group 1 and 2 (mean pain scores, 1.34 ± 1.42 vs. 1.22 ± 1.31 points, respectively; P>0.05). However, significant difference was found between propofol lipuro groups with or without lidocaine (3.20 ± 2.10 vs. 0.95 ± 1.21 points, respectively; P<0.001). CONCLUSION: The highest pain scores were found in the propofol lipuro without lidocaine use while propofol lipuro plus lidocaine had the lowest pain scores. Because adding lidocaine to propofol lipuro decreased injection pain scores to minimum levels, this practice seems to be the most appropriate alternative in order to diminish propofol injection pain during anesthesia in children.
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 | 0.020 | 0.028 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".