Levobupivacaine 0.75% vs. lidocaine 4% for topical anaesthesia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of topical levobupivacaine drops 0.75% vs. lidocaine drops 4% in cataract surgery. METHODS: We examined 203 patients undergoing cataract surgery by phacoemulsification. They were randomized into two groups: one received four drops of lidocaine 4% and the other received four drops of levobupivacaine 0.75%. The onset and offset times of sensory block were evaluated. Application, intraoperative and postoperative subjective pain was quantified by the patients using a verbal pain score. Complications, rates of supplemental anaesthesia, and the satisfaction of surgeon and patients were also recorded. RESULTS: The mean sensory onset and offset times were significantly higher for the levobupivacaine group (P < 0.01). Pain score was lower in the levobupivacaine group than in the lidocaine one and the difference was statistically significant at all stages (P < 0.01). The mean satisfaction scores of patients and surgeon were also statistically higher for levobupivacaine (P < 0.01). No significant differences for complications and rates of supplemental anaesthesia were found. CONCLUSIONS: Topical levobupivacaine 0.75% shows the same efficacy and safety as lidocaine 4% in cataract surgery by phacoemulsification. There was an adequate block with a good level of satisfaction of surgeon and patients. Levobupivacaine 0.75% offers a new and acceptable choice for topical anaesthesia in cataract surgery.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".