Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22956204›Full record

Trial reportTechniques in coloproctology2012

Randomized clinical trial of ropivacaine wound infusion following laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

S E Moore, K C Reid, B D Draganic, S R Smith

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Techniques in coloproctology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

S E MooreJohn Hunter Hospital, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, NSW, Australia.
K C Reid
B D Draganic
S R Smith
John Hunter Hospital · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWound infusions with local anaesthesia have been used with varying success following laparotomy for colonic resections. This trial sought to determine the efficacy of ropivacaine wound infusion following laparoscopic colonic surgery.

methodsForty-eight consecutive patients undergoing elective laparoscopic colorectal resection were randomized to receive either a local anaesthetic wound infusion (ropivacaine 0.5%) or normal saline for a period of 72 h. The primary endpoint was postoperative pain as assessed by analgesic consumption, while secondary endpoints assessed were visual analogue pain scores, respiratory function, gastrointestinal function, length of stay and postoperative complications.

resultsThere was no difference in mean postoperative analgesic consumption between the two groups over 72 h (143 mEq morphine control vs 94 mEq intervention; p = 0.108). Likewise, there was no difference in daily postoperative analgesic consumption or visual analogue pain scores between the two groups. Patients in the ropivacaine group experienced less reduction in their postoperative forced expiratory volume at 1 s on day 1 (mean difference FEV1 0.4 l; p = 0.015). There was no difference between the two groups with respect to return of gut function and postoperative complications.

conclusionsIn this study, local anaesthetic wound infusion with ropivacaine following elective laparoscopic colorectal surgery improves early respiratory function, but does not appear to provide an improvement in postoperative analgesia or other clinically relevant postoperative outcomes.

Indexed as

AmidesAnesthetics, LocalColonFemaleHumansInfusions, ParenteralLaparoscopyMaleMiddle AgedPain MeasurementPostoperative PainProspective StudiesRopivacaineAmidesAnesthetics, LocalRopivacaine

Identifiers

PMID22956204
OpenAlexW2009031709

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.