Fluid Replacement in Craniofacial Pediatric Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Pediatric craniofacial surgery requires large amounts of intravenous fluid replacement that may alter the ionic composition of body compartments. Normal (0.9%) saline (NS) and Ringer's lactate (RL) solutions are commonly used, with different advantages and disadvantages. Our hypothesis was that there would be more acidosis with NS but with no advantage of NS over RL regarding the incidence of hyponatremia. Our objective was to determine whether acid-base and electrolyte outcomes could guide fluid management in this group of patients. METHODS: A retrospective study of 122 children younger than 5 years who underwent craniofacial surgery was performed: 63 received only NS (NS group) and 59 received RL (RL group). Blood gases, plasma sodium, and potassium concentrations were analyzed during 2 different periods: 1 to 2 hours from anesthetic induction (P-1) and 2 to 4 hours from anesthetic induction (P-2). Statistical comparisons were made with χ test and t-test, as appropriate. RESULTS: Acidosis was more frequent in NS group than in RL patients during P-1 and P-2: 66% and 80% in the NS group versus 26% and 37% in the RL group. Severe acidosis (pH ≤ 7.25) was also more frequently in those receiving NS (39%) than RL (8%); and so was a base excess of -5 or less: NS = 53% and RL = 16%. The incidence of hyponatremia (Na < 135 mmol/L) was similar in both groups: 40% (NS) and 26% (RL) during P-1 and 52% (NS) and 50% (RL) during P-2. CONCLUSIONS: In young children undergoing craniofacial surgery, RL may be a preferred crystalloid over NS because metabolic acidosis is less frequent, with no increased incidence of hyponatremia.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".