Ultrasound guided TAP block versus ultrasound guided caudal block for pain relief in children undergoing lower abdominal surgeries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ObjectiveUltrasound guided transversus abdominis plane (TAP) nerve block and caudal analgesia are safe and effective methods in children. The aim of the study was to compare the effectiveness and safety of both methods.Methods60 patients were randomly allocated into 3 groups: group A: (n = 20) received ultrasound guided transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block; group B: (n = 20) received ultrasound guided caudal block and group C: (n = 20) received conventional analgesia to be considered as controlled group. Hemodynamics, pain scores of Children’s Hospital Eastern Ontario Pain Scale (CHEOPS) and objective pain score (OPS), postoperative complication, satisfaction of the patients and parents and postoperative analgesic requirements were recorded.ResultsThere was no significant difference between the three groups in mean arterial blood pressure and heart rate. Postoperative analgesia requirements were significantly higher in group B compared to group A, meanwhile it was significantly higher in group C compared to both groups A and group B. There was significant difference between group A and group C in pain scores assessment but no significant difference between group A and group B. Patient and parent satisfaction was markedly observed in groups A & B more than group C (the control group) and more satisfaction in group A than group B.ConclusionTAP block and caudal block under ultrasound guidance proved to be safe with no recorded complications either intra or postoperatively. Patient and parent satisfaction was markedly observed in case of TAP block.
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".