Comparison of the onset time between 0.375% ropivacaine and 0.25% levobupivacaine for ultrasound-guided infraclavicular brachial plexus block: a randomized-controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
At centers with pressure on rapid operating room turnover, onset time is one of the important considerations for choosing a local anesthetic drug. To hasten the onset of the block, higher concentrations of local anesthetics are sometimes used. However, the use of diluted local anesthetics may be safer. Therefore, we aimed to compare the onset times of equipotential levobupivacaine and ropivacaine at low concentrations for infraclavicular brachial plexus block. Adult patients undergoing upper extremity surgery under ultrasound-guided infraclavicular brachial plexus block at our center were randomly allocated to the levobupivacaine and ropivacaine groups. Infraclavicular brachial plexus block was induced with 0.25% levobupivacaine or 0.375% ropivacaine depending on the assigned group. The degrees of sensory and motor blockade were assessed for 40 min after the administration of local anesthetics. A total of 46 patients were included in the analysis. Infraclavicular brachial plexus block with 0.25% levobupivacaine and 0.375% ropivacaine provided sufficient surgical anesthesia. The sensory onset time of 0.375% ropivacaine was shorter than that of 0.25% levobupivacaine (group R, 15 [15.0-22.5] min; group L, 30 [17.5-35.0] min, p = 0.001). There were no significant differences in other block characteristics and clinical outcomes between the two groups. Thus, when a quicker block onset is required, 0.375% ropivacaine is a better choice than 0.25% levobupivacaine.Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03679897).
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) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".