Intravesical Ropivacaine as a Novel Means of Analgesia Post–Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study evaluates the safety and efficacy of intravesical ropivacaine as part of a mulitimodal approach to the provision of analgesia after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, 40 patients who were scheduled to undergo RARP for treatment of localized prostate cancer by a single surgeon (SP) were randomized 1:1 to receive either alkalinized intravesical ropivacaine or placebo (0.9% sodium chloride) at the completion of the vesicourethral anastomosis. A standardized general anesthetic was administered in each case. The primary outcome was a reduction in postoperative pain as assessed by a visual analogue scale (VAS). The need for alternate analgesic agents was recorded. Adverse events related to the administration of intravesical ropivacaine were documented prospectively. RESULTS: No serious adverse events related to the administration of intravesical ropivacaine were identified. In the ropivacaine group, there was a significant reduction in the cumulative needed dose of ketoralac relative to placebo at 6 hours postoperatively. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups with regard to pain scores or narcotic use at any time point. CONCLUSIONS: Intravesical administration of ropivacaine may be used safely in the context of RARP and is associated with a significant, albeit modest reduction in the need for supplementary analgesic agents, but did not result in a decrease in postoperative pain scores.
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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".