Addition of dexmedetomidine to bupivacaine in supraclavicular brachial plexus block
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Research is ongoing to determine the lowest dose of local anesthetics in brachial plexus block that provides adequate anesthesia and postoperative analgesia and reduces complications related to local anesthetics. METHODS: Patients 18-65 years of age who underwent upper limb surgery and who received ultrasound-guided supraclavicular brachial plexus block at the Erciyes University Faculty of Medicine Hospital between February 2014 and January 2015 were included in the study (n=50). Supraclavicular brachial plexus blocks were performed on Group B cases by adding 30 ml 0.33% bupivacaine and on Group BD cases by adding 15 ml 0.33% bupivacaine and 1 µg / kg dexmedetomidine. Block success was evaluated by the onset and block duration of motor and sensory block and the duration of analgesia. RESULTS: The block success of Group B and Group BD was 92.6% and 89.3%, respectively (P = 1.000). Onset time of sensory block, degree of sensory block, duration of sensory block, onset time of motor block, degree of motor block and duration of motor block were similar in both groups in the intergroup comparison (P > 0.05). Duration of analgesia and the operative conditions of groups were similar (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In the implementation of ultrasound-guided supraclavicular brachial plexus block, block success, sensory and motor block and analgesia duration were similar for patients anaesthetized with 30 ml of bupivacaine in comparison with dexmedetomidine+bupivacaine (when the bupivacaine dose was reduced by 50% by the addition of the adjuvant).
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".