Analgesic effect of ultrasound-guided erector spinae plane block versus ultrasound-guided caudal block in pediatric open renal surgeries: A randomized comparative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: We aimed to compare erector spinae plane block (ESPB) and caudal block (CB) with ultrasound guidance as regards time of first request of rescue analgesia, opioid consumption, degree of postoperative pain relief, and incidence of complications in pediatric patients undergoing open renal surgeries such as nephrectomy and pyeloplasty. Materials and Methods: Fifty children were recruited to undergo unilateral open renal surgeries and divided into two-equal groups randomly. The age of both genders ranged from 2 to 6 years . After general anesthesia had been induced, blocks were given. After the surgical procedure and during the first 12 h of the postoperative period, the quality of analgesia was assessed immediately postoperative and then at 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, and 12 h postoperatively using Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario Pain Scale (CHEOPS). Opioid was intravenously given as rescue analgesia (0.05 mg/kg) when needed in both groups if CHEOPS pain score exceeded 6. It could be given every 8 h if needed. Results: As regards the time of the first request of rescue analgesia and total morphine consumption postoperatively, there was a marked difference between the two groups in favor of erector spinae plane block as no rescue analgesia was needed during the first 12 h in the postoperative period. It was proved that both blocks under ultrasound guidance were safe with no recorded complications were noted either intra or postoperatively. Conclusion: ESPB provided effective prolonged analgesia postoperatively with lower pain scores as compared with the CB in children undergoing open renal surgeries.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".