Clonidine addition prolongs the duration of caudal analgesia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In this study, using a dose-ranging design, we examined the effects of clonidine with 0.125% bupivacaine on the duration of post-operative analgesia in caudal anaesthesia in children. METHODS: We conducted a controlled, prospective study of clonidine in caudal anaesthesia in 60 children, aged 1-10 years, undergoing elective inguinal hernia repair. Induction and maintenance of anaesthesia were performed by inhalation of sevoflurane and nitrous oxide. The children were randomized in a double-blind fashion to four groups, and were given a caudal anaesthetic with either 0.125% plain isobaric bupivacaine (1 ml/kg) or bupivacaine plus 1, 1.5 or 2 microg/kg of clonidine. The blood pressure and heart rate were recorded peri-operatively. Analgesia was evaluated by the modified Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Pain Scale (mCHEOPS) or a visual analogue scale (VAS). Paracetamol was given when the mCHEOPS score was greater than five or when the VAS score was greater than 30 mm. The monitoring of scores for pain, haemodynamic changes and post-operative nausea and vomiting was performed by nurses blind to the study allocation. RESULTS: The duration of analgesia was found to be significantly longer in the group given bupivacaine plus 2 microg/kg of clonidine (median, 650 min; range, 300-900 min). Peri-operative hypotension and bradycardia, post-operative respiratory depression and motor block were not recorded in any patient. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of clonidine to 0.125% bupivacaine prolongs the duration of post-operative analgesia without any respiratory or haemodynamic side-effects.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".