SUBCUTANEOUS VERSUS SUBCUTANEOUS AND INTRAPERITONEAL LOCAL ANAESTHETIC IN THE MANAGEMENT OF POST APPENDICECTOMY PAIN
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To compare the efficacy of subcutaneous only and combined subcutaneous and peritoneal infiltration of 0.5% bupivacaine during appendicectomy for the management of early post operative pain. Study Design: Randomized controlled study. Place and Duration of Study: Department of Surgery, CMH Kohat from 13th December 2007 to 20th December 2008. Patients and Methods: Sixty patients of acute appendicitis, divided into two groups of 30 each, were included in the study. Group A was given 0.5% bupivacaine subcutaneously, whereas group B was given the anaesthetic subcutaneously as well as intraperitoneally during appendectomy. Results: In group A, 24 (80%) were VAS (visual analogue scoring) 3 (uncomfortable) and 6 (20%) were VAS 2 (mild pain) whereas in study group B, 11 (36.6%) were VAS 3, 19 (63.3%) were VAS 2 and 19 (63.3%) were VAS 2 during 1st 12 hrs postoperatively (p=0.001). In 12-24 hrs post operatively, 15 (50%) patients were VAS 3 in group A and same number was VAS 2 and in group B, only 3 (10%) were in VAS 3 and 27 (90%) were VAS 2 (p=0.001). Conclusion: A combination of subcutaneous and peritoneal infiltration with bupivacaine is superior in relieving post appendectomy pain so patients require less dosage of analgesics in early post operative period along with early mobilization.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".