Small-Dose Selective Spinal Anesthesia for Short-Duration Outpatient Laparoscopy: Recovery Characteristics Compared with Desflurane Anesthesia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: We conducted a randomized controlled trial to compare the recovery characteristics of selective spinal anesthesia (SSA) and desflurane anesthesia (DES) in outpatient gynecological laparoscopy. Twenty ASA physical status I patients undergoing gynecological laparoscopy were randomized to receive either SSA with lidocaine 10 mg + sufentanil 10 microg or general anesthesia with DES and N(2)O. Intraoperative conditions, recovery times, postanesthesia recovery scores, and postoperative outcomes were recorded. Intraoperative conditions were comparable in both groups. All patients in the SSA group were awake and oriented at the end of surgery, whereas patients in the DES group required 7 +/- 2 min for extubation and orientation. SSA patients had a significantly shorter time to straight leg raising (3 +/- 1 min versus 9 +/- 4 min; P < 0.0001) and to ambulation (3 +/- 0.9 min versus 59 +/- 16 min; P < 0.0001) compared with the DES group. SSA patients had significantly less postoperative pain than DES patients (P < 0.05). We concluded that SSA was an effective alternative to DES for outpatient gynecological laparoscopy. IMPLICATIONS: This study compared the use of a desflurane general anesthetic to a small-dose spinal anesthetic in ambulatory gynecological laparoscopy. Using the spinal technique, patients can walk from the operating room table to a stretcher on completion of surgery. Their recovery time was similar to that of the desflurane group.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".