Ropivacaine 0.2% versus Bupivacaine 0.25% in para-umbilical block in children.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Para-umbilical block was an old block that regains a new interest. No study was available using Ropivacaine in this block. AIM: To compare quality of analgesia after using Ropivacaine 0.2% to Bupivacaine 0.25% in para-umbilical blocks. METHODS: In a prospective randomized double blind study we included one to six years old children, scheduled for umbilical herniorrhaphy. The children were randomized in two groups to receive in para-umbilical block by side: Ropivacaine 0.2%: 0.2 ml.kg-1 (group GR) or Bupivacaine 0.25%: 0.2 ml.kg-1 (group GB). RESULTS: The data of 75 children (GR= 38; GB= 37) were analyzed. The groups were comparable regarding the demographics' characters. The scores of Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Pain Scale in different postoperative times were comparable between the two groups. No difference was noted in the time of the first analgesic request. The two groups were comparable regarding the peroperative analgesia. No complication was recorded in this study. CONCLUSION: Ropivacaine 0.2% is equivalent to the Bupivacaine 0.25% concerning postoperative and peroperative analgesia in the para-umbilical block for umbilical herniorrhaphy.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".