A Randomised Controlled Trial to Assess the Analgesic Efficacy of Reduced Dose 0.2% Ropivacaine–Dexmedetomidine Combination Compared to Standard 0.375% Ropivacaine in USG Guided TAP Block for Paediatric Hernia Repair
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Paediatric pain management has remained understated practice over a period of time. Recently ultrasound-guided (USG) guided techniques are gaining popularity for perioperative analgesia, especially in the paediatric population. So, the aim of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy of reduced dose ropivacaine-dexmedetomidine combination compared to standard 0.375% ropivacaine in USG guided transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block. METHODS: Sixty children of either sex, aged 2-10 years, posted for elective open herniotomy under general anaesthesia were randomly divided into two groups of 30 patients each. Group RD received 0.2% ropivacaine with dexmedetomidine 1 mg kg 1 while group R received 0.375% ropivacaine at 0.5mL kg 1. Meantime to first rescue and total analgesics, Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Pain Scale (CHEOPS) and Ramsay sedation score, haemodynamic parameters and adverse effects were noted. RESULTS: Time to first rescue analgesia in group RD and group R were 16.32 6 3.11 hours and 10.82 6 2.16 hours, respectively (P < .0001). Mean CHEOPS score were 4.48 6 1.1 and 6.3 6 1.74 (P < .024) in group RD and R. Post-op Ramsay sedation score was significantly greater in group RD. Heart rate and blood pressure remained similar in either of the group. No episode of respiratory depression, bradycardia or hypotension was noted perioperatively. CONCLUSION: Combination of 1 mg kg 1 dexmedetomidine with reduced concentration of ropivacaine (0.2%) produced significantly longer duration of post-operative analgesia and lowered post-operative CHEOPS pain score in comparison with 0.375% ropivacaine alone in USG guided TAP block for paediatric hernia repair.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".