Levobupivacaine 0.25% compared with ropivacaine 0.25% by the caudal route in children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and objective: Levobupivacaine is the most recently introduced local anaesthetic into clinical practice. In a randomized double-blinded study, the onset, intraoperative tolerance, postoperative analgesic effect, motor blockade and any adverse reactions produced by levobupivacaine were compared with ropivacaine. Methods: Sixty children, ASA I-II, 2-6 yr old, undergoing elective minor surgery, received a single caudal injection of 1 mL kg−1 of either levobupivacaine 0.25% or ropivacaine 0.25%. Caudal blocks were performed after induction of inhalation general anaesthesia using sevoflurane; anaesthesia was maintained via a laryngeal mask airway using a mixture of sevoflurane, oxygen and air. Results: Onset time, intraoperative tolerance, postoperative analgesic effect and motor blockade were comparable between the two groups. The mean onset of the block was 8.2 ± 2.2 min for levobupivacaine and 8.5 ± 3.0 min for ropivacaine (P = 0.66). Additional analgesics during operation were not required in any of the children. No significant difference was found for mean time to requirement of additional analgesia with rectal acetaminophen (paracetamol) (302 ± 29 min for the levobupivacaine group and 230 ± 38 min for the ropivacaine group (P = 0.32)). During the first 4 h after placement of caudal block, the pain assessment score (according to the Children Hospital Eastern Ontario Pain Scale) was comparable for the two groups. No motor block was observed in any group on awakening, nor during the observation period. Conclusions: We conclude that levobupivacaine 0.25% 1 mL kg−1 provides caudal block of comparable onset and duration, as produced by the same volume and concentration of ropivacaine.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".