Topical cocaine vs adrenaline in endoscopic sinus surgery: a blinded randomized controlled study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Adequate surgical field visualization is among the most important factors in preventing complications in functional endoscopic sinus surgery (FESS). The aim of this study was to assess the effect of topical cocaine vs adrenaline on surgical field visualization and intraoperative bleeding during FESS. METHODS: A randomized controlled trial was conducted. A total of 37 patients that underwent FESS for chronic rhinosinusitis were randomized to the side of the nose that received adrenaline or cocaine-soaked patties, and the side that was operated first. The surgeon evaluating the bleeding was blinded to the vasoconstrictor allocation. At the commencement of surgery and at regular 15-minute intervals, the operating surgeon evaluated the extent of bleeding in the operative field according to a validated scale. At each assessment, mean arterial pressure (MAP), heart rate, and end tidal CO2 were also recorded. At the end of each side, total blood loss was measured. RESULTS: There was no difference in the mean surgical field scores between the adrenaline and cocaine sides (2.04 ± 0.75 vs 2.17 ± 0.7, p = 0.24), nor the total blood loss (p = 0.43). On the cocaine side, there was a correlation between surgical field grade and duration of surgery (p < 0.05) as well as blood loss (p < 0.05) and MAP (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: There is no difference in the quality of the surgical field achieved through the use of topical cocaine or adrenaline during FESS. Either of these agents can be effectively used for topical decongestion at the onset of 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".