The Hemostatic and Hemodynamic Effects of Epinephrine During Endoscopic Sinus Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the hemodynamic and hemostatic effects of 2 different concentrations of epinephrine in local anesthetic used during functional endoscopic sinus surgery (FESS). Injection of local anesthetic containing epinephrine during endoscopic sinus surgery, while providing hemostasis, has been associated with cardiac adverse effects such as tachycardia, hypertension, as well as arrhythmias. DESIGN: Double-blind, randomized clinical trial. SETTING: Tertiary referral center. PATIENTS: A total of 140 patients undergoing FESS randomly divided into 2 groups, with group 1 receiving lidocaine hydrochloride, 2%, with 1:100 000 epinephrine and group 2, lidocaine, 2%, with 1:200 000 epinephrine. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Baseline and postinjection hemodynamic parameters were recorded at 1-minute intervals for 5 minutes. Patient demographics, the extent of surgery, and the presence of polyps were recorded in both groups. Hemodynamic and hemostatic parameters and intraoperative blood loss were compared. RESULTS: Significant hemodynamic fluctuations were noted following injection of lidocaine, 2%, with 1:100 000 epinephrine (group 1). Increases in heart rate and systolic, diastolic, and mean arterial blood pressure were noted in group 1 patients. The increase was found to be significant (P < .001) in the first and second minutes after injection and decreased to baseline level by the fifth minute. This fluctuation was not noted in group 2 patients, who received lidocaine, 2%, with 1:200 000 epinephrine. Using a standardized scale to assess surgical bleeding, no statistical difference in the 2 groups was observed (P > .05). CONCLUSION: Submucosal injection of lidocaine, 2%, with 1:200 000 epinephrine during FESS does not lead to hemodynamic fluctuations or increased intraoperative bleeding compared with lidocaine, 2%, with 1:100 000 epinephrine. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00852410.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".