The analgesic effect of clonidine as an adjuvant in dorsal penile nerve block
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Dorsal penile nerve block (DPNB) is a commonly performed regional anesthetic technique for male circumcision. The aim of this study was to assess the analgesic effect of the adjunction of clonidine to bupivacaine 0.5% in this block. METHODS: It was a prospective randomized double-blind clinical trial including 40 ASA1 boys aged from 1 to 4 years undergoing elective circumcision. Dorsal penile nerve block was performed under general Anesthesia. Patients were randomized in two groups: Group 1 (G1): received 0.1 ml/Kg of bupivacaine 0.5% with 1µg/kg of clonidine in each side. Group 2 (G2): received 0.1 ml/kg of bupivacaine 0.5% with placebo in each side. The failure of the DNPB was defined by the increase of heart rate by more than 25% comparing to baseline and in his case an intravenous injection of 20 µg/kg of alfentanyl was given. Post-operative pain was assessed by CHEOPS score. RESULTS: A total of 40 patients were enrolled. Demographic parameters were similar in both groups. We noted no case of DNPB failure in this study. The supply for additional analgesia was seen in 12 patients in group 2 versus 3 cases in group 1. CHEOPS (Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Pain Scale) was significantly lower in group 1 from 2nd post operative hour until the 24th hour. CONCLUSION: Clonidine can be used in dorsal penile nerve block to improve and to prolong its analgesic effects after male circumcision.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".