Intravenous ketamine and local bupivacaine infiltration are effective as part of a multimodal regime for reducing post-tonsillectomy pain.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of a multimodal analgesic regimen, including intravenous ketamine and peritonsillar infiltration of bupivacaine, on post-tonsillectomy pain in children. MATERIAL/METHODS: Ninety children aged 2-12 years, undergoing tonsillectomy, were enrolled in this randomized, controlled and double-blinded study. Group I (n=30) received intravenous and peritonsillar saline, group II (n=30) received intravenous saline and peritonsillar bupivacaine, and group III (n=30) received intravenous 0.5 mg/kg ketamine and peritonsillar 0.25% bupivacaine (3-5 ml per tonsil). Pain was evaluated using a modified Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Pain Scale (mCHEOPS) recorded 15 min and 1, 4, 12, 16, and 24 h postoperatively. RESULTS: No difference was found in the demographic data among the groups. Group I patients who received intravenous and peritonsillar saline solution as placebo had higher pain scores at 15th min, and 1st and 4th h than group II, and at all time intervals, than group III (P<0.05). Patients in group III also had significantly lower pain scores than group II at all time intervals except at 15th min (P<0.05). Analgesic requirements and the time to first analgesia were also significantly (P<0.05) better in the ketamine group. CONCLUSIONS: Intravenous ketamine and peritonsillar infiltration with bupivacaine are safe and effective as part of a multimodal regime in reducing post-tonsillectomy pain.
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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".