Prevention of vomiting after strabismus surgery in children: dexamethasone alone versus dexamethasone plus low‐dose ondansetron
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Postoperative vomiting is a common complication after strabismus surgery. The combination of dexamethasone and ondansetron decreases vomiting after strabismus surgery, while dexamethasone alone decreases vomiting after tonsillectomy in children. We compared the effect of dexamethasone alone to ondansetron plus dexamethasone on postoperative vomiting among children undergoing strabismus surgery. METHODS: Healthy children, aged 2-14 years, who were undergoing strabismus surgery were entered into this randomized, blocked and stratified study. Patients were administered 0.5 mg.kg(-1) midazolam p.o., 20-30 min preoperatively when indicated. The patients had an intravenous induction with 2.5-3.5 mg.kg(-1) propofol or an inhalation induction of anaesthesia with halothane and N2O. All patients were given 20 microg.kg(-1) atropine i.v. Study drugs were administered in a double-blind fashion. Both groups received 150 microg.kg(-1) dexamethasone i.v. Group D patients received placebo and group OD received 50 microg.kg(-1) of ondansetron i.v. Anaesthesia was maintained with halothane and N2O. Postoperative fluid, vomiting and pain management were standardized. Patients were followed for 24 h. We studied 193 patients with 111 patients in the OD group. Demographic data were similar. RESULTS: The overall incidence of vomiting was 23%; in group D and 5%; in group OD (P < 0.001). Each episode of vomiting increased the in-hospital length of stay by 29 min (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: There was a remarkably low incidence of postoperative vomiting of 5%; with the combination of dexamethasone plus a low-dose of ondansetron which more effectively decreased vomiting after strabismus surgery in children when compared with dexamethasone alone.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".