A Comparison of levobupivacaine 0.5% and racemic bupivacaine 0.5% for extradural anesthesia for caesarean section
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Bupivacaine is available as a racemic mixture of its enantiomers, dextrobupivacaine and levobupivacaine. Both in vitro and in vivo studies show that dextrobupivacaine has a greater inherent central nervous system (CNS) and cardiovascular toxicity than levobupivacaine. Clinical studies show levobupivacaine to have similar local anesthetic potency to the racemate. The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical efficacy and safety of levobupivacaine compared with racemic bupivacaine for extradural anesthesia. METHODS: We studied 62 patients undergoing elective caesarean delivery who received 25 mL of either levobupivacaine 0.5% or bupivacaine 0.5%, extradurally, in a randomized, double-blind study. RESULTS: The 2 groups were similar in terms of time to block suitable for surgery, segmental spread, and duration of sensory block. However, lower-limb motor block was significantly longer in the levobupivacaine group but of significantly less intensity. CONCLUSIONS: Levobupivacaine produces an extradural block that is similar to bupivacaine, and is a suitable local anesthetic agent for caesarean delivery.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".