A Comparison of the Postoperative Analgesic Effectiveness of Ultrasound-Guided Dorsal Penile Nerve Block and Ultrasound-Guided Pudendal Nerve Block in Circumcision
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The aim of this study was to compare the postoperative analgesic effectiveness of the 2 block types. We also aimed to evaluate the effect of these block types on the postoperative complications and parental satisfaction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective observational study was conducted between April and July 2019 at a training and research hospital. Patients aged between 5 and 12 years in the ASA I-II group, who were scheduled for circumcision, were included in the study. The primary outcome was the pain measured using the Children's Hospital Eastern Ontario Pain Scale and the Faces Pain Scale-Revised. The secondary outcomes were the postoperative complications and parenteral satisfactions. RESULTS: The number of patients receiving a pudendal block (n = 40) and dorsal penile nerve block (DPNB) block (n = 40) was equal. No statistically significant difference was found between the groups that were administered a DPNB and pudendal block in terms of pain scores (p > 0.05). We did not observe any postoperative block-related complications or side effects. Parents reported excellent satisfaction in both groups. DISCUSSION: Ultrasound (US)-guided pudendal nerve block and US-guided DPNB provided effective and long-lasting postoperative analgesia for circumcision surgery. CONCLUSIONS: This study has shown that both blocks provide postoperative analgesia with similar effectiveness and ensured a very comfortable period at the circumcision surgery. Clinicians can use either of these techniques depending on their clinical circumstances and experience.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".