Fentanyl versus midazolam added to bupivacaine for spinal analgesia in children undergoing infraumbilical abdominal surgery: A randomized clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The addition of fentanyl or midazolam to intrathecal bupivacaine was tested to reduce the occurrence and pain degree in children undergoing infraumbilical surgery under sevoflurane anesthesia with intrathecal analgesia.Methodology Children (6–8 years) were randomized into three groups of 30 patients each with consent from parents. Groups C, F, and M received 0.3 mg/kg of 0.5% bupivacaine + 0.9% NaCl (placebo),0.3 mg/kg of 0.5% bupivacaine + 0.2 µg/kg of fentanyl, and 0.3 mg/kg of 0.5% bupivacaine + 0.5 mg of midazolam, respectively. Assessments included time to first analgesic request, postoperative pain score, the total amount of rescue analgesics, motor and sensory blocks, sedation, family satisfaction, and adverse effects.Results The Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario score was higher in the control than in the midazolam and fentanyl groups. The mean time to the first request for rescue analgesia was longer in group M (297.1 ± 10.7 min) than in groups F (219.9 ± 25.4 min) and C (162.7 ± 37.5; P = 0.000). The total analgesic consumption was higher in both control and fentanyl groups (P = 0.044). Family satisfaction was significantly higher in group M (P = 0.013) with no adverse effects.Conclusion In the present study, intrathecal midazolam (0.5 mg) was superior to intrathecal fentanyl (0.2 μg/kg) in increasing the duration of postoperative pain relief with lower postoperative pain scores and less incidences of adverse effects. Consequently, intrathecal midazolam can be used as an adjuvant to local anesthetics if fentanyl is not accessible or contraindicated.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".