Randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing ultrasound-guided pudendal nerve block with ultrasound-guided penile nerve block for analgesia during pediatric circumcision
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Optimal analgesia for circumcision is still debated. The dorsal penile nerve block has been shown to be superior to topical and caudal analgesia. Recently, the ultrasound-guided pudendal nerve block (group pudendal) has been popularized. This randomized, blinded clinical trial compared group pudendal with ultrasound-guided dorsal penile nerve block (group penile) under general anesthesia for pediatric circumcision. METHODS: Prepubertal males aged 1-12 years undergoing elective circumcision were randomized to either group. The primary outcome was postoperative face, legs, activity, cry, consolability (FLACC) scores. Our secondary outcomes included parent's postoperative pain measure, analgesic consumption during the first 24 hours, surgeon's and parent's satisfaction, time to perform the block, hemodynamic changes intraoperatively and total time in postanesthesia care unit and until discharge. RESULTS: A total of 155 patients were included for analysis (77 in group pudendal and 78 in group penile). Mean age was 7.3 years old. FLACC scores were not statistically different between groups (p=0.19-0.97). Surgeon satisfaction was higher with group pudendal (90.8% vs 56.6% optimal, p<0.01). Intraoperative hemodynamic changes (>20% rise of heart rate or blood pressure) were higher in group pudendal (33.8% vs 9.0%, p<0.01) as was intraoperative fentanyl use (1.3 vs 1.0 μg/kg, p<0.01). Other secondary outcomes were not statistically different. DISCUSSION: Both ultrasound-guided blocks, performed under general anesthesia, provide equivalent postoperative analgesia for pediatric circumcision as evidenced by low pain scores and opioid consumption. Surgeon satisfaction was higher in the pudendal group. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03914365.
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 | 0.008 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.001 |
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".