Effect of bupivacaine with epinephrine wound instillation for pain relief after pediatric inguinal herniorrhaphy and hydrocelectomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of a 20- or 60-second instillation period using 0.5% bupivacaine with epinephrine for pain relief after pediatric inguinal herniorrhaphy and hydrocelectomy. METHODS: In a randomized, double-blind study, 103 children (aged 1 to 12 years, American Society of Anesthesiologists [ASA] physical status I or II) were allocated into 4 groups after induction of anesthesia. Group 1: normal saline 0.25 mL/kg instilled, which remained in the wound for 20 or 60 seconds before wound closure. Group 2: 0.25 mL/kg 0.5% bupivacaine with epinephrine 5 microg/mL instilled, which remained in the wound for 20 seconds. Group 3: the same quantity and dose of drug 2 instilled as group, but remained in the wound for 60 seconds. Group 4: an ilioinguinal and iliohypogastric block performed before operation using 0.5 mL/kg 0.25% bupivacaine with epinephrine. The Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Pain Scale (CHEOPS) and Aldrete-Kroulik recovery scores were used to monitor postoperative pain and recovery status. Analgesic was given when the CHEOPS score was >/= 7 despite other supportive therapy. RESULTS: The number of patients requiring analgesics within 2 hours in group 1 (73.1%) was more than groups 2, 3, and 4 (23.1%, 20.8%, and 16%, respectively, P <.001). The median time to first analgesic in group 1 (50 minutes) was also less than groups 2, 3, and 4 (420, 525, and 425 minutes, respectively, P <.0001). CONCLUSION: 0.5% Bupivacaine with epinephrine for as short an instillation period as 20 or 60 seconds can provide a good analgesic alternative after herniorrhaphy and hydrocelectomy in pediatric patients. All studied blocks had comparable duration of action.
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 | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".