Infiltration of ropivacaine for post-tonsillectomy and adenoidectomy pain in children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To evaluate the effect of infiltration of ropivacaine for post-adenotonsillectomy pain in children.Methods Forty children aged 4～10 years undergoing adenotonsillectomy were enrolled and randomly divided into ropivacaine group(R) and control group(C).The children in the R group were infiltrated with 0.2% ropivacaine plus 1:100 000 epinephrine into the tonsillar fossa preoperatively.In the C group,the children only received saline plus epineiphrine(1:100 000) before operation.The MAP,HR,SpO2 were monitored for 4 h after surgery and the modified Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Pain Scale(mCHEOPS),additional analgesic and side effects(nausea,vomiting,pruritus and respiratory depression,etc) were recorded at 15,30 min and 1,4,12,16,24 h after surgery.Results There was no significant difference of age,weight,sex,and duration of anesthesia and surgery(P0.05).The MAP,HR and mCHEOPS in group C were significantly higher than those in group R during 4 h after surgery(P0.05).There were 20 children needed extra fentynle in group C but none in group R(P0.05).There was no postoperative side effect in both two groups.Conclusion The infiltration of 0.2% ropivacaine could attenuate the postoperative pain after adenotonsillectomy.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".