Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17273833›Full record

Trial reportDer Anaesthesist2007

[Spinal anaesthesia in day-case surgery. Optimisation of procedures].

G Rätsch, H Niebergall, L Hauenstein, A Reber

Abstract readComparative StudyEnglish AbstractRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Der Anaesthesist, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 29% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

G RätschKlinik für Anästhesiologie und Intensivmedizin, Spital Zollikerberg, Zollikerberg.
H Niebergall
L Hauenstein
A Reber
Spital Zollikerberg · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSince prilocaine is being increasingly used for day case surgery as a short acting local anaesthetic for spinal anaesthesia and because of its low risk for transient neurological symptoms, we compared it to bupivacaine. PATIENTS AND

methodsPatients (n=88) who were scheduled for lower limb surgery with spinal anaesthesia randomly received 15 mg hyperbaric bupivacaine 0.5% or 60 mg hyperbaric prilocaine 2% (administered in a sitting position). Onset time, intensity, duration of the sensomotoric block, vital parameters and time of spontaneous miction were recorded and patients were questioned on satisfaction with the anaesthesia procedure and the occurrence of adverse side-effects after 24 h.

resultsBupivacaine caused a significantly higher sensory block than prilocaine (T6 vs. T8). Both groups were similar in reaching an analgesic level of at least T12, block intensity and onset times. Median analgesic levels at T12 were maintained for 60 min with prilocaine versus 120 min with bupivacaine, regression of the motor block was 135 min versus 210 min, sensory block S1 was 240 min versus 360 min, and time for spontaneous miction was 306 min versus 405 min, respectively (differences for all comparisons were statistically significant).

conclusionUnder the present study conditions, hyperbaric prilocaine 2% was superior to hyperbaric bupivacaine 0.5% due to a shorter effect profile but otherwise equivalent quality of block. However, puncture in a sitting position and positioning with elevated torso for restriction of the cranial expansion of block spread might cause an enhanced sacral block with delayed recovery of bladder function.

Indexed as

Ambulatory Surgical ProceduresAnesthesia, SpinalAnesthetics, LocalBupivacainePrilocaineAdolescentAdultAgedBlood PressureDouble-Blind MethodFemaleHumansLower ExtremityMaleMiddle AgedNerve BlockAnesthetics, LocalBupivacainePrilocaine

Identifiers

PMID17273833
OpenAlexW381655952

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.