ESRA19-0143 A randomised controlled trial examining the analgesic efficacy of the quadratus lumborum block versus the ilioinguinal/iliohypogastric nerve block for open inguinal herniotomy in children (preliminary report)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and aims An ilioinguinal/iliohypogastric nerve block (II/IHB) is commonly performed to control post-herniotomy pain. the ultrasound-guided (USG) quadratus lumborum block (QLB) also provides effective analgesia for lower abdominal surgery. This randomised, assessor-blinded study aimed to compare analgesic effect of the USG-QLB and USG-II/IHB after paediatric unilateral inguinal hernia surgery. Methods After obtaining ethics committee approval (Maharaj Nakorn Chiang Mai Hospital), a total of 40 paediatric patients were randomly allocated to receive either a USG-QLB with 0.25% bupivacaine 0.5 ml/kg or a USG-II/IHB with 0.25% bupivacaine 0.2 ml/kg after induction of general anaesthesia. the primary outcomes were the 24-hour postoperative analgesic requirements and Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario Pain Scale (CHEOPS) at 2, 6, 12, and 24 hours after surgery. the secondary outcomes were block performance time, success rate, block-related complications and parental satisfaction. Results Preliminarily, 25 of 40 patients were recruited. the success rate was 100% for both groups. During the first 24 hours, 3 (23.1%) and 6 (50.0%) children in the QLB and II/IHB groups received oral acetaminophen (P = 0.226). Compared to the QLB group, the median [interquartile range (IQR)] acetaminophen dosage was higher (4.5 [0–12.3] vs 0 [0–0] mg/kg; P = 0.100) and the median [IQR] time to the first acetaminophen requirement was shorter (5.3 [3.8–6.3] vs 10 [3.8–11.5] hour; P = 0.134) in the II/IHB group. the CHEOPS, block performance time and parental satisfaction were similar. Only one patient in the II/IHB group had a vascular puncture. Conclusions The USG-QLB and USG-II/IHB provide comparable analgesia following paediatric open inguinal herniotomy.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.001 |
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".