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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.003

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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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