Analgesia for adenotonsillectomy in children: a comparison of morphine, ketamine and tramadol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Establishment of good analgesia is of major concern in the postoperative period following adenotonsillectomy. The aim of this study was to compare the effects of ketamine, morphine and tramadol on postoperative pain after adenotonsillectomy in children. METHODS: Sixty children (age 5-12 years) scheduled for adenotonsillectomy were randomized into four groups to receive intravenously (i.v.) either 0.5 mg.kg(-1) ketamine hydrochloride (K), 0.1 mg x kg(-1) morphine hydrochloride (M), 1.5 mg x kg(-1) tramadol hydrochloride (T) or normal saline (S) in a volume of 4 ml during induction. After tracheal intubation 10 microg x kg(-1).min(-1) ketamine hydrochloride in group K and 0.6 ml x kg(-1) x h(-1) saline i.v. in groups M, K and S were infused peroperatively. Postoperative analgesic requirements and side-effects were recorded. Pain was assessed by the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) and the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Pain Scale (CHEOPS) scores. RESULTS: Heart rate increased significantly peroperatively only in group K. NRS at first and fifth minute in group M and at first minute in group T and K and CHEOPS score at first, fifth, 15th and 60th min in group M were found to be significantly lower than in the control group. The time to first analgesic requirement was significantly longer in group M compared with ketamine and the control group. Six children in group M, nine in group T, 11 in group K and 15 in group S needed additional analgesics. CONCLUSIONS: Morphine hydrochloride 0.1 mg x kg(-1) i.v. administered during induction of anaesthesia provides efficient pain relief in children undergoing adenotonsillectomy.
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) | 0.001 | 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".