Comparison of Analgesic Effect of Dexmedetomidine versus Tramadol as Adjuvants to Caudal Ropivacaine in Infraumbilical Surgeries among Pediatric Patients: A Randomized Double Blind Interventional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To compare the postoperative analgesic effects of 0.2% ropivacaine with Dexmedetomidine (2 g/kg) and tramadol (2 mg/kg) among pediatric patients undergoing infra umbilical surgery.Material and Methods: This hospital based, randomized double blind interventional study included 60 pediatric patients, aged 1–7 years, having American Society of Anaesthesiology grade I and II, weighing 7-25 kg, and undergoing infraumbilical surgeries under general anesthesia. Subjects were randomly allocated into two groups to receive either: 2 mcg/ kg of Dexmedetomidine or 2 mg/kg of Tramadol, as adjuvant to 0.2% of Ropivacaine. Pain intensity was assessed using the pediatric observational Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario Pain Scale (CHEOPS) score. Rescue analgesia was given, when the CHEOPS score was ≥6. Duration of analgesia was defined as: the time period between administrations of block until rescue analgesia was given. Level of sedation was assessed by the Ramsay sedation score.Results: Kaplan Meier analysis showed that the median time to first rescue analgesia (duration of analgesia) was significantly (p-value<0.001) prolonged with Dexmedetomidine (780 minutes; 95% CI: 760.68–799.32 minutes) as compared to Tramadol (648 minutes; 95% CI: 635.92–660.38 minutes). Mean emergence time and duration of sedation were also significantly prolonged with Dexmedetomidine as compared to Tramadol.Conclusion: In pediatric patients undergoing infraumbilical surgeries, Dexmedetomidine as adjuvant to Ropivacaine provides an advantage of longer post-operative analgesia and lack of opioid related adverse events associated with Tramadol.
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 | 0.039 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads 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".