Oral clonidine as a pre‐anesthetic medication in hair transplantation surgery—A pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hair transplantation (HT) is a safe and rewarding procedure for a patient as well as the surgeon. Clonidine may be a good adjuvant in HT because of its analgesic, anxiolytic, and sedative effects. OBJECTIVE: To study efficacy of Clonidine as a preoperative medication in HT. METHODS & MATERIALS: The study was a prospective trial of 46 consecutive patients who underwent HT between January and May 2017. Patients with normal vital parameters on arrival were given Tab clonidine (0.1 mg) 30 min before starting of the procedure [Clonidine group (n = 30)]; rest were included in the control group (n = 16). Vitals were monitored every 30 min during surgery until the end. Patients were assessed for pain, level of sedation during surgery and for postoperative analgesia. RESULT: All patients who received clonidine, except one, were comfortable and experienced no pain throughout the duration of surgery; nine went into deep sleep. Of the 16 patients in the control group, no patients reported deep sleep, 3 felt restless, and 4 had mild pain. There were no untoward effects in both groups. CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that clonidine is useful as a pre-anesthetic medication in HT. However, this is a pilot study and further larger studies are needed.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".