An Evaluation of Gas Humidifying Devices as a Means of Intraperitoneal Local Anesthetic Administration for Laparoscopic Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Intraperitoneal local anesthetic administration has been reported to provide perioperative analgesia during laparoscopic procedures. The aim of this in vitro study was to assess the efficiency of commercially available humidification devices to deliver ropivacaine and to determine the effects of modifying the device's position between the insufflator and the Veress needle on the amount of ropivacaine delivered. METHODS: In the first experiment, four humidification devices filled with ropivacaine (0.20% and 0.75%) were placed at the outlet of a laparoscopic insufflation system delivering a constant carbon dioxide flow. A catheter was connected to the humidifier's outlet and the other end submerged in a calibrated vial containing 25 mL of 50% methanol in water. The concentration of ropivacaine collected in the methanol-water solution was measured using high performance liquid chromatography. In the second experiment, the clinical situation was imitated by placing 3 m of silicone tubing between the humidifier and the collection vial to evaluate its influence on the amount of ropivacaine delivered. Only one humidifier was tested in the second experiment because the other three tested humidification devices did not efficiently deliver ropivacaine. RESULTS: The evaporation-based humidifiers delivered very small or nonmeasurable quantities of ropivacaine. In contrast, the microvibration-based aerosol humidification device delivered significant amounts (89.1%-94.3%) of the drug. The insertion of silicone tubing between the humidifier and the collecting vial reduced the amount of delivered ropivacaine to 62.3%. CONCLUSIONS: The microvibration-based aerosol humidification device may be used to deliver local anesthetics during laparoscopic procedures. Further research is necessary to confirm these results in clinical practice and to provide effective humidification that does not blur the surgeon's view.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".