Comparison between Caudal and TAP Blocks Post-Inguinal Surgery Analgesia in Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The optimal and lonely method to achieve typical analgesia post-inguinal surgeries in children is still not determined. This study compared the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects between caudal analgesia and TAP (Transversus Abdominis Plane) block. Methods: 40 children (male) between 3-9 years old, with parental consent and institutional board approval, undergoing elective inguinal hernia repair surgery, randomly divided in two groups were enrolled in this study. Both groups received induction on Sevoflurane, Fentanyl, Propofol and Atracurium (dose dependent), with laryngeal mask airway and mechanical ventilated, maintenance on Sevoflurane and smoothly recovered. The first group (C) received caudal analgesia of Bupivacaine 0.25% (1ml/kg). The second group (T) received TAP block of Bupivacaine 0.25% (0.5 ml/kg). Pain was assessed by CHEOPS (Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Pain Scale). Parents also assessed pain (after explain and orient them) with Wong-Baker scale 0 (no pain) and 10 (worst pain imaginable). Results: The first group (C) of patients had about 240 ± 30 minutes, while the second group (T) had about 360 ± 60 minutes, early ambulation and feeding and finally, most of them missed the pain till they were home discharged. Conclusion: TAP block enhances comfortable long-time post-op state for the patients, especially the young age group as they are hardly pain dealt off. Also TAP block has an easily performed procedure with less dose and complications compared to the caudal ones.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".