MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2341725484

Caudal anesthesia in pediatrics: an update.

2006· article· en· W2341725484 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Paolo Silvani, Anna Camporesi, Agostino Mr, Ida Salvo

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAnesthesia and Pain Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRopivacaineAnesthesiaSevofluranePremedicationMidazolamLocal anestheticDiazepamSedation
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: Caudal anesthesia is one of the most used-popular regional blocks in children. This technique is a useful adjunct during general anesthesia and for providing postoperative analgesia after infraumbilical operations. The quality and level of the caudal blockade is dependent on the dose, volume, and concentration of the injected drug. Although it is a versatile block, one of the major limitations of the single-injection technique is the relatively short duration of postoperative analgesia. The most frequently used method to further prolong postoperative analgesia following caudal block is to add different adjunct drugs to the local anesthetics solution. Only few studies evaluated quality and duration of caudal block against the volume of the local anaesthetic applied. After reviewing recent scientific literature, the authors compare the duration of postoperative analgesia in children scheduled for hypospadia repair when 2two different volumes and concentrations of a fixed dose of ropivacaine are used. METHODS: After informed parental consent, 30 children (ASA I, 1-5 years old) were enrolled in a multicentre, perspective, not randomized, observational study conducted in two 2 children hospitals. After premedication with midazolam, anesthesia was induced with thiopental and maintained with sevoflurane in oxygen/air. After induction, patients received a caudal blockade either with ropivacaine 0.375% at 0.5 mL/kg (Low Volume High Concentration Group, LVHC; n = 15), or ropivacaine 0.1% at 1.8 mLl/kg (High Volume Low Concentration Group, HVLC; n = 15). Surgery was allowed to begin 10ten minutes after performing the block. MAC-hour was calculated. In the recovery room, pain was assessed using the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Pain Scale (CHEOPS). In addition, the motor block was scored. After transferral to the ward, the patients were observed for 24 hours for signs of postoperative pain. The time period to first supplemental analgesic demand, i.e., from establishment of the block until the first registration of a CHEOPS score = or > 9, was considered the primary endpoint of the study. The time periods were compared using analysis of variance adjusted for age, weight and duration of surgical procedure as covariates. RESULTS: All patients were judged to have sufficient intraoperative analgesia, and none of them received additional analgesics intraoperatively. Patients' characteristics were similar, besides the age (32+/-10 vs 24 +/- 9 months; P < 0.05) and weigh (15.13 +/- 3.92 vs 11.93 +/- 1.83; P = 0.08). Analgesics were needed after 520 +/- 480 min in the LVHC and 952 +/- 506 min in the HVLC group (P < 0.05). Motor block was less in the HVLC group. CONCLUSIONS: In children undergoing hypospadia repair, caudal block with a ''high volume, low concentration'' regimen produces prolonged analgesia and less motor block, compared to a ''low volume, high concentration'' regimen.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.085
Threshold uncertainty score0.351

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.201 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations98
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicAnesthesia and Pain ManagementFrench-language works237,207