A randomized controlled trial of ganglion impar block vs ganglion impar block with superior hypogastric plexus block for pain relief in patients of pelvic and perineal cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We compared the efficacy of Ganglion Impar (GI) block versus Superior Hypogastric Plexus (SHP) with GI block (both combined) for pain relief in patients of pelvic and perineal cancer.This prospective, randomized, double-blinded, controlled study was conducted on 50 patients, 18 to 70 years old with pelvic and perineal cancer pain with baseline VAS score>5.GI neurolysis with 3-5ml 70% alcohol in one group(group G) and GI along with SHP neurolysis with 10 ml 70% alcohol on either side was done in the other group(group S).VAS score, quality of life (QOL) score by Mcgill's quality of life questionnaire, requirement of rescue analgesia post-procedure were assessed.The VAS score decreased in both the groups and was lower in group S than in group G, at all intervals except at baseline.QOL also improved in both the groups, the QOL scores being lower in S than G group at all intervals, except at 2 weeks follow up.Rescue analgesic requirement was similar in both the groups except at 2 nd and 3 rd months when morphine consumption was more in GROUP G. Concluded that GI block and GI with SHP block both provide drastic pain relief in pelvic and perineal cancer pain, pain relief being more when SHP is blocked along with GI.Quality of life is improved, and morphine requirement is reduced in both groups (more in group S).
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".