ArticleWorld journal of urology2013
Pudendal nerve block in HDR-brachytherapy patients: do we really need general or regional anesthesia?
Article in World journal of urology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- [Urological surgery with analogosedation and local anesthesia. What makes sense?].Der Urologe. Ausg. A · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeIn male patients, the pudendal block was applied only in rare cases as a therapy of neuralgia of the pudendal nerve. We compared pudendal nerve block (NPB) and combined spinal-epidural anesthesia (CSE) in order to perform a pain-free high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy in a former pilot study in 2010. Regarding this background, in the present study, we only performed the bilateral perineal infiltration of the pudendal nerve.
methodsIn 25 patients (71.8 ± 4.18 years) suffering from a high-risk prostate carcinoma, we performed the HDR-brachytherapy with the NPB. The perioperative compatibility, the subjective feeling (German school marks principle 1-6), subjective pain (VAS 1-10) and the early postoperative course (mobility, complications) were examined.
resultsAll patients preferred the NPB. There was no change of anesthesia form necessary. The expense time of NPB was 10.68 ± 2.34 min. The hollow needles (mean 24, range 13-27) for the HDR-brachytherapy remained on average 79.92 ± 12.41 min. During and postoperative, pain feeling was between 1.4 ± 1.08 and 1.08 ± 1.00. A transurethral 22 French Foley catheter was left in place for 6 h. All patients felt the bladder catheter as annoying, but they considered postoperative mobility as more important as complete lack of pain. The subjective feeling was described as 2.28 ± 0.74. Any side effects or complications did not appear.
conclusionsBilateral NPB is a safe and effective analgesic option in HDR-brachytherapy and can replace CSE. It offers the advantage of almost no impaired mobility of the patient and can be performed by the urologist himself. Using transrectal ultrasound guidance, the method can be learned quickly.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.