Trial reportInternational journal of colorectal disease2013
Randomised clinical trial of pilonidal sinus operations performed in the prone position under spinal anaesthesia with hyperbaric bupivacaine 0.5 % versus total intravenous anaesthesia.
Trial report in International journal of colorectal disease, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- Lithotomy versus jack-knife position on haemodynamic parameters assessed by impedance cardiography during anorectal surgery under low dose spinal anaesthesia: a randomized controlled trial.BMC anesthesiology · 2015Trial
- Pilonidal Sinus Operations Performed Under Local Anesthesia versus the General Anesthesia: Clinical Trial Study.Global journal of health science · 2016Article
- German national guideline on the management of pilonidal disease.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2016Review
- Anesthetic management for craniotomy in a patient with massive cerebellar infarction and severe aortic stenosis: a case report.International journal of clinical and experimental medicine · 2015Article
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
purposeThe aim of this randomised clinical trial was to determine whether spinal anaesthesia (SPA) is superior to total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) in patients undergoing pilonidal sinus (PS) operations in the prone position.
methodsAfter approval of the local ethics committee, suitable patients aged 19-49 years were randomised to SPA (7.5 mg hyperbaric bupivacaine) or TIVA (Propofol and Fentanyl). Cumulative consumption of analgesics, postoperative recovery, complications and patient satisfaction were evaluated.
resultsA total of 50 patients were randomised within a 24-month period. Median monitoring time in the recovery room was 0 (0-11) min for SPA versus 40 (5-145) min for TIVA (p < 0.0001). Patients in the SPA group were able to drink (40.5 (0-327) min versus TIVA 171 (72-280) min, p < 0.0001) and eat (55 (0-333) min versus TIVA 220 (85-358), p < 0.0001) earlier. More patients with a TIVA needed analgesics in the recovery room (SPA n = 0 versus TIVA n = 6, p = 0.0023) and suffered more frequently from a sore throat (SPA n = 0 versus TIVA n = 11, p = 0.0001). Two patients with a TIVA suffered from nausea and vomiting. Patients of both groups were equally satisfied with the anaesthesia technique offered.
conclusionsSPA with 7.5 mg hyperbaric bupivacaine is superior to TIVA in patients undergoing PS operations in the prone position in terms of analgesia consumption in the recovery room, recovery times and postoperative complications.
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.