A Randomized Trial to Evaluate the Effect of Two Topical Anesthetics on Pain Response During Frenotomy in Young Infants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To examine the comparative effectiveness of two topical anesthetics in controlling the pain associated with tongue-tie release (frenotomy) in young infants. Design: Randomized trial. Setting: A Pediatric Craniofacial Clinic. Subjects: Forty-two infants who were referred for frenotomy were randomly allocated to receive the topical anesthetic gel 2% tetracaine or 20% benzocaine applied prior to frenotomy. Frenotomies were videotaped. The primary outcome measure was the Neonatal Facial Coding System (NFCS) score. Secondary outcome measures included cry duration and a visual analog scale (VAS) assessed by the parents. Results: The two groups were comparable with regard to weight, age, gender, previous painful experience, and last feeding time. Median NFCS scores prior to frenotomy in the tetracaine and the benzocaine groups were 4.5 (IQR: 0.75–10.2) and 3.5 (IQR: 0–9.5), respectively (P = 0.89, 95% CI −3 to 4). During frenotomy, median NFCS score increased to 28 (IQR: 24.5–30.25) in the tetracaine group (P < 0.0001, median difference −22, 95% CI −24.5 to −19), and to 28 (IQR: 26–30) in the benzocaine group (P < 0.0001, median difference −23, 95% CI −27 to −17). Mean cry durations in the tetracaine and the benzocaine groups were 69.4 seconds and 63.9 seconds, respectively (P = 0.32, 95% CI −47 to 15), and mean VAS scores were 57.2 and 58.2, respectively (P = 0.89, 95% CI −15.2 to 13.4). Conclusions: These topical anesthetics seem ineffective in controlling the pain associated with frenotomy. Clinicians should continue to search for an effective treatment for this procedure.
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 | 0.048 | 0.037 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".