Peritoneal Nebulization of Ropivacaine during Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: Dose Finding and Pharmacokinetic Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Intraperitoneal nebulization of ropivacaine reduces postoperative pain and morphine consumption after laparoscopic surgery. The aim of this multicenter double-blind randomized controlled trial was to assess the efficacy of different doses and dose-related absorption of ropivacaine when nebulized in the peritoneal cavity during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Methods. Patients were randomized to receive 50, 100, or 150 mg of ropivacaine 1% by peritoneal nebulization through a nebulizer. Morphine consumption, pain intensity in the abdomen, wound and shoulder, time to unassisted ambulation, discharge time, and adverse effects were collected during the first 48 hours after surgery. The pharmacokinetics of ropivacaine was evaluated using high performance liquid chromatography. Results. Nebulization of 50 mg of ropivacaine had the same effect of 100 or 150 mg in terms of postoperative morphine consumption, shoulder pain, postoperative nausea and vomiting, activity resumption, and hospital discharge timing (>0.05). Plasma concentrations did not reach toxic levels in any patient, and no significant differences were observed between groups ( P>0.05 ). Conclusions. There is no enhancement in analgesic efficacy with higher doses of nebulized ropivacaine during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. When administered with a microvibration-based aerosol humidification system, the pharmacokinetics of ropivacaine is constant and maintains an adequate safety profile for each dosage tested.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".