EPIDURAL ROPIVACAINE: EFFECTS OF HIGH-VOLUME/ LOW-CONCENTRATION VERSUS LOW-VOLUME/ HIGH-CONCENTRATION IN RENAL TRANSPLANT PATIENTS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Choice of an appropriate analgesic regimen is especially important in ESRD patients. Regional analgesia technique such as epidural with local anaesthetic drugs has been found suitable in such patients. This study was designed to compare a high-volume/low-concentration with low-volume/high concentration ropivacaine regimen in ESRD transplant patients. Materials And Methods: This prospective, open level randomized control study was conducted on 40 end stage renal disease (ESRD) patients, aged between 20- 60 years of either sex who underwent live-related renal transplant surgery.GROUP A Low volume/High concentration group received 6 ml of 0.75% ropivacaine and GROUP B High volume/Low concentration group received 12 ml of 0.375% ropivacaine.Total dose of ropivacaine needed for postoperative pain control and for achieving T6 to S5 sensory block, Level of motor blockade and Dose of vasopressors needed for haemodynamic stability was compared. Results: Total dose of ropivacaine required to achieve T6 to S5 sensory block and total dose of vasopressor used was higher in low volume high concentration group at initiation of block. Postoperative quality of analgesia as assessed by VAS score and top up requirements (total dose of postoperative ropivacaine used) was comparable in both the groups. Conclusion: We conclude no added advantage of using low volume high concentration ropivacaine drug regimen in renal transplant recipients in terms of quality of analgesia and haemodynamic stability.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".