Effects of dexmedetomidine and esmolol on otoacoustic emissions during controlled hypotensive anesthesia: randomized clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to investigate the ability of esmolol and dexmedetomidine to achieve controlled hypotension on cochlea by measuring otoacoustic emission and stapedius reflex. METHODS: In this prospective, double-blind pilot study, patients scheduled for elective tympanoplasty, rhinoplasty and endoscopic sinus surgery operation were randomly assigned to two groups, and received either dexmedetomidine (n=23) or esmolol (n=24) during surgery to maintain a mean arterial blood pressure between 55 and 65 mmHg. Distortion product otoacoustic emission tests (DPOAE) were performed 24 hours before and after the operation and during surgery (in the 20th and 40th minutes of the operation). RESULTS: In the intra-group comparison, a statistically significant decrease was present at t20 (2,000 and 4,000 Hz frequency band) and t40 (1,000 and 1,500 Hz) according to the baseline value in the dexmedetomidine group (n=23); in the esmolol group (n=24), a statistically significant decrease (relative to the baseline value) was also detected at t20 and t40 for the 1,000 Hz frequency band. No damage was found on stapes reflexes with the infusion of these drugs. CONCLUSIONS: Infusion of dexmedetomidine and esmolol decreased DPOAE levels during the operations, but DPOAE levels returned to normal in the postoperative period, and had no effect on stapes reflexes. Studies with larger groups of patients are needed to confirm these results in tympanoplasty and other surgeries.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".