ArticleIndian journal of anaesthesia2014
A comparative evaluation of epidural and general anaesthetic technique for renal surgeries: A randomised prospective study.
Article in Indian journal of anaesthesia, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative analysis of combined spinal-epidural anesthesia and general anesthesia in percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a prospective study on surgical team and operating room personnel satisfaction.World journal of urology · 2024Article
- Safety and Efficacy of Ultrasound-Guided Combined Segmental Thoracic Spinal Epidural Anesthesia in Abdominal Surgeries and Laparoscopic Procedures: A Prospective Randomized Clinical Study.Anesthesiology and pain medicine · 2023Article
- Research progress of percutaneous nephrolithotomy.International urology and nephrology · 2018Review
- Is segmental epidural anaesthesia an optimal technique for patients undergoing percutaneous nephrolithotomy?Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2017Article
- Epidural ropivacaine with dexmedetomidine reduces propofol requirement based on bispectral index in patients undergoing lower extremity and abdominal surgeries.Anesthesia, essays and researchesArticle
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsNeuraxial anaesthesia has become popular for the renal surgeries during the last few years. This study was aimed at comparing general anaesthesia (GA) with epidural anaesthesia in patients undergoing renal surgeries.
methodsOne hundred American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) physical status-I and II adult consenting patients of both gender in the age group of 25-55 years undergoing renal surgeries were randomly assigned to two groups of 50 patients each: Group G and Group E. Group G patients were administered conventional GA while Group E received epidural anaesthesia (EA) with 3 mg/kg of ropivacaine and 1 μg/kg of dexmedetomidine. Besides cardio-respiratory parameters, surgeon's satisfaction, patient's satisfaction and side effects were observed. Parametric data were analysed by ANOVA while non-parametric data were compared with Mann-Whitney U-test and Wilcoxon test. Value of P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
resultsThe demographic profile, total anaesthesia time, surgical time and haemodynamic parameters and surgeon's satisfaction scores were comparable in both groups. Patient's satisfaction scores were better in Group E during the post-operative period. Incidence of side-effects such as nausea and vomiting and shivering were higher in Group G (P < 0.001) while the incidence of dry mouth was higher in Group E (P < 0.001).
conclusionEpidural anaesthesia with ropivacaine and dexmedetomidine can be safely and effectively used in patients undergoing renal surgeries.
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.