Randomized controlled trial comparing the effects of methoxyflurane and local anesthesia combination to local anesthesia alone in scrotal surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Outpatient scrotal surgery under local anesthesia (LA) has been associated with excellent safety, tolerability, and efficacy; however, needle phobia and periprocedural anxiety remain areas for improvement. This study evaluated the efficacy of methoxyflurane as an adjunct to LA in alleviating pain and anxiety during local anesthesia-based scrotal urologic surgeries. METHODS: A non-blinded, randomized controlled trial was conducted at Men's Health Clinic Manitoba for patients undergoing scrotal surgery under LA. A power calculation determined a required sample size of 40. Patients were randomized to receive either LA alone or LA with inhaled methoxyflurane. Pain and anxiety were assessed pre- and postoperatively using a visual analog scale (VAS) and the State-Trait Anxiety Index (STAI). Comparisons of VAS pain scores and anxiety measures between groups were performed using the Mann-Whitney U-test. RESULTS: Forty patients underwent scrotal procedures under LA without intraoperative or postoperative adverse events. Patients in the methoxyflurane group reported similar intraoperative pain levels compared to the LA group (1.35 vs. 1.85, p=0.3); however, intraoperative anxiety in the methoxyflurane group was significantly less than the control group (0.4 vs. 1.65, p=0.01). Patients receiving methoxyflurane also reported significantly higher procedural tolerability compared to controls (9.6 vs. 7.4, p=0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Scrotal surgery under LA is well tolerated; however, inhaled methoxyflurane as an adjunct to LA is an effective means of reducing anxiety and further improving patient-reported experiences during scrotal urologic procedures.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".