A double-blind randomized controlled trial showing the analgesic and anesthetic properties of lidocaine E to be equivalent to those of ropivicaine and bupivacaine in carpal tunnel release surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a three-phase trial, the anesthetic properties of lidocaine, bupivacaine and ropivicaine were compared in carpal tunnel release surgery.In phase I, two groups of 25 sequential patients were injected with either lidocaine plain 2% or lidocaine 2% with adrenaline 1:100,000 (E), as the local anesthetic for outpatient carpal tunnel release surgery.Subjective injection pain, postoperative pain at 2 h increments and the number of analgesic pills taken were recorded.During the first postoperative hours, outcome measures were superior in the lidocaine E group.In phase II, a double-blind randomized design compared 42 patients injected with either lidocaine E or a combination of lidocaine E and bupivacaine.Postoperative pain scores and analgesic pills taken were compared using nonparametric statistical tests.During the first 4 h there was a slight benefit in the duration of the anesthetic and fewer pain pills were used in the bupivacaine group.Phase III was a randomized double-blind comparison of ropivicaine and lidocaine E 2% in 72 patients.There was a slight decrease in pain scores and fewer analgesic pills required during the first 6 h in the ropivicaine group.Lidocaine plain 2% provided significantly inferior analgesic and anesthetic properties compared with lidocaine E 2%, bupivacaine or ropivicaine.Sequential randomized comparisons between lidocaine E and bupivacaine and ropivicaine showed clinical equivalence.The present study showed lidocaine E 2% to be a satisfactory and comparatively cost-effective anesthetic for outpatient carpal tunnel surgery.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".