Reduction of early postoperative pain after diagnostic laparoscopy with \nlocal bupivacaine: a randomized placebo controlled study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the effects of preincisional infiltration and \nintraperitoneal instillation of bupivacaine on early relief of pain \nafter diagnostic laparoscopy. Design: Randomized, placebo, \ncontrolled-double blind study Setting: University teaching hospital. \nMaterials and methods:\tSixty three women with unexplained infertility, \nfor whom diagnostic laparoscopy was performed under general anesthesia. \nPreincisional infiltration at the trocar sites and intraperitoneal \ninstillation of bupivacaine were used in the patient group (group I) \nwhich included 32 patients, and same volumes of physiologic saline were \ngiven at the same sites to control group (group II) which included 31 \npatients. Modified McGill pain intensity score was used to assess the \npostoperative pain. Main outcome measures: Pain scores at 1,2 and 3 \nhours postoperatively, percent of patients who needed further \nanalgesia, percent of patients discharged 2 hours after the procedure \nand time to first analgesia. Results: Pain scores at 1, 2 and 3 hours \npostoperatively were significantly lower for group I than group II (P \n< 0.05). The percent of patients who needed further analgesia was \nsignificantly lower in group I compared with group II (P < 0.05). \nThe percent of patients discharged 2 hours after the operation also was \nsignificantly higher in group I than group II (P <0.05%). The time \nto first analgesia was significantly longer in group I (P <0.05). \nConclusion: Bupivacaine infiltration into the trocar sites and \ninstillation into the peritoneal cavity is beneficial for patients \nundergoing diagnostic laparoscopy. The effect of these drugs is \ntemporary, but they can significantly decrease early postoperative pain \nand reduce the need for additional analgesics. Most important, the rate \nat which patients can be discharged from the hospital only 2 hours \nafter surgery is increased significantly.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 teacher head, 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".