Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction:We aimed to compare caudal anesthesia's impact on postoperative complications to a dorsal penile block (DPB).Methods: A superiority randomized controlled trial (RCT) was conducted, including boys 6-48 months of age at surgery diagnosed with hypospadias.Patients who had undergone previous hypospadias surgery or could not be administered caudal or dorsal penile block were excluded.Block randomization was employed with a 1:1 allocation ratio and a standardized anesthesia protocol.The primary outcome was the formation of UCF or glans dehiscence captured at 6-8 weeks, six months, and 12 months postoperatively.Secondary outcomes included postoperative pain and analgesic use in the hospital and at home using validated pain scales (FLACC, CHEOPS, PPPM, TPPPS), operative time (OpT), temperature, and induction time.Results: We enrolled 120 patients and 14 withdrew.Of the 100 patients who completed followup, 50 had caudal and 50 DPB (Table 1).The overall complication rate was 10%, with two fistulae and eight GD.There were eight (16%) complications in the caudal group vs. two (4%) in the DPB (p=0.05).The mean OpT was 143 minutes in the caudal vs. 122 minutes in the DPB group (p=0.04).Induction time was 23 minutes vs. 16.43 (p<0.01).There was no difference in pain scales or analgesic use in the hospital or during the first 24 hours postoperatively.Conclusions: The preliminary results of this RCT suggest that caudal blocks are associated with increased complication rates, increased OpT, and induction time.Pain and analgesic use were comparable across groups, suggesting DPB is as effective as a caudal block for pain management intraoperatively and in the first 24 hours postoperatively.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.511 | 0.176 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".