Comparison of Retrobulbar Analgesics for Evisceration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine whether postoperative pain and nausea after evisceration surgery is better controlled with intraoperative retrobulbar ethanol or bupivacaine. METHODS: Prospective, randomized, clinical trial. Eleven patients undergoing evisceration surgery by two surgeons over a 6-month period for blind, chronically painful eyes were randomly allocated in two groups. One group (5 patients) received prophylactic retrobulbar 95% ethanol injections; the control group (6 patients) received retrobulbar 0.75% bupivacaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine. Postoperative pain and nausea were recorded by the patients with the use of a 10-point analog scale. Patients also documented the quantity of analgesics required. RESULTS: The mean and median postoperative pain and nausea scores were significantly lower for patients given intraoperative retrobulbar ethanol (paired t test, P<0.01). These patients also required significantly less analgesic medicine. Complications from the retrobulbar ethanol injections included forehead numbness and ptosis, both of which had resolved by the time of prosthesis fitting 6 weeks later. CONCLUSIONS: Surgeons should consider the use of intraoperative retrobulbar ethanol injections to help relieve postoperative pain and nausea.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".