Pilonidal Sinus Operations Performed Under Local Anesthesia versus the General Anesthesia: Clinical Trial Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUNDS: Various methods were defined to prepare patients for the pilonidal sinus surgery including local, spinal, and general anesthesia. But there is no powerful evidence to differ these procedures. Therefore, in the current study, we compared local and general anesthesia in the pilonidal sinus surgery. METHODS & MATERIAL: in this clinical trial (IRCT201312031786N5) study 60 patients with the pilonidal sinus disease divided to two groups of local anesthesia versus general anesthesia. For local anesthesia we used 6ml of 2% lidocaine with an epinephrine (1:200,000), 6ml of 0.5% bupivacaine, 1ml fentanyl (50μg/ml), 1ml clonidine (75μg/ml) and for general anesthesia fentanyl 1.5 μg.kg-1, thiopental 3-5 mg.kg-1, followed by the trachea intubation facilitated by atracurim 0.5 mg.kg-1 with maintenance of isoflurane 1-3% in nitrous oxygen 70% and oxygen 30%. The student t-test and Chi-square test were applied to evaluate the differences. RESULTS: there were 30 patients with the mean age of 27.43±8.42 years in local anesthesia group and 30 cases with the mean age of 27.5±8.44 years underwent general anesthesia. The recovery time was significantly lower in the local anesthesia group (P=0.000). The oxygen saturation of the general anesthesia group was significantly higher at 1 and 20 minutes after the operation. The average of pain score was significantly higher in general anesthesia group at 3h and 6h after surgery (P<0.001). There were no significant differences in post-operative complications and hospital length of stay. CONCLUSION: this investigation revealed that local anesthesia has decreased pain during 48 hours after the surgery, shorter recovery time, and the less consumption of painkillers. So, we concluded that we can consider local anesthesia as a good alternative for the general anesthesia in the pilonidal sinus 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 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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".