Pre-incisional infiltration of tonsils with dexamethasone dose not reduce posttonsillectomy vomiting and pain in children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<b>Background and Objective:</b> Recently, dexamethasone has been found to have a prophylactic effect on postoperative vomiting and pain in children undergoing tonsillectomy. However, few studies have examined the preemptive analgesic effects of dexamethasone after tonsillectomy. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of pre-incisional infiltration of tonsils with dexamethasone on the incidence and severity of postoperative pain and vomiting in children undergoing tonsillectomy under general anesthesia. <b> Materials and Methods:</b> In a double blinded study, 62 patients were randomly allocated to infiltrate dexamethasone (0.5 mg/kg, maximum dose, 12 mg) or an equivalent volume of saline at the peritonsillar region. All infiltrations were performed following the induction of general anesthesia and 5 minutes prior to the onset of surgery. Anesthetic agents, end-tidal carbon dioxide levels, and the administration of intravenous fluids were carefully regulated. Surgery was performed by one attending otolaryngologists using the same dissection and snare technique. The incidence of pain and vomiting, need for rescue antiemetics, and analgesic consumption were compared in both groups. Pain scores used included Children′s Hospital Eastern Ontario Pain Scale, "faces", and a 0-10 visual analogue pain scale. <b> Results:</b> Demographics of dexamethasone and placebo groups were similar. No statistically significant difference was found between the dexamethasone and placebo groups in pain score, nausea, vomiting, irritability, or analgesic requirement postoperatively. <b> Conclusion:</b> Preincisional infiltration of the tonsils with dexamethasone play a limited role in the recovery phase from tonsillectomy, but further prospective, randomized studies are needed to support it.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 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".