Trial reportWorld journal of surgical oncology2014
A comparison of thoracic or lumbar patient-controlled epidural analgesia methods after thoracic surgery.
Trial report in World journal of surgical oncology, 2014. 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, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pain Management Approaches for Robotic-Assisted Thoracic Surgery: A Retrospective Analysis.Journal of pain research · 2025Article
- Post-Operative Thoracic Epidural Analgesia and Incidence of Major Complications according to Specific Safety Standardized Documentation: A Large Retrospective Dual Center Experience.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Article
- Guidelines for postoperative care in gynecologic/oncology surgery: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society recommendations--Part II.Gynecologic oncology · 2016Article
- Ultrasound guided erector spinae plane block versus thoracic epidural analgesia in traumatic flail chest, a prospective randomized trial.Journal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacologyArticle
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe aimed to compare patient-controlled thoracic or lumbar epidural analgesia methods after thoracotomy operations.
methodsOne hundred and twenty patients were prospectively randomized to receive either thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA group) or lumbar epidural analgesia (LEA group). In both groups, epidural catheters were administered. Hemodynamic measurements, visual analog scale scores at rest (VAS-R) and after coughing (VAS-C), analgesic consumption, and side effects were compared at 0, 2, 4, 8, 16, and 24 hours postoperatively.
resultsThe VAS-R and VAS-C values were lower in the TEA group in comparison to the LEA group at 2, 4, 8, and 16 hours after surgery (for VAS-R, P = 0.001, P = 0.01, P = 0.008, and P = 0.029, respectively; and for VAS-C, P = 0.035, P = 0.023, P = 0.002, and P = 0.037, respectively). Total 24-hour analgesic consumption was different between groups (175 +/- 20 mL versus 185 +/- 31 mL; P = 0.034). The comparison of postoperative complications revealed that the incidence of hypotension (21/57, 36.8% versus 8/63, 12.7%; P = 0.002), bradycardia (9/57, 15.8% versus 2/63, 3.2%; P = 0.017), atelectasis (1/57, 1.8% versus 7/63, 11.1%; P = 0.04), and the need for intensive care unit (ICU) treatment (0/57, 0% versus 5/63, 7.9%; P = 0.03) were lower in the TEA group in comparison to the LEA group.
conclusionsTEA has beneficial hemostatic effects in comparison to LEA after thoracotomies along with more satisfactory pain relief profile.
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.