ArticleSaudi journal of anaesthesia2014
Prevention of altered hemodynamics after spinal anesthesia: A comparison of volume preloading with tetrastarch, succinylated gelatin and ringer lactate solution for the patients undergoing lower segment caesarean section.
Article in Saudi journal of anaesthesia, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It has been retracted, and should not be counted. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Fluid loading therapy to prevent spinal hypotension in women undergoing elective caesarean section: Network meta-analysis, trial sequential analysis and meta-regression.European journal of anaesthesiology · 2020Pooled it
- Techniques for preventing hypotension during spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020Pooled it
- Techniques for preventing hypotension during spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Review
- Retraction.Saudi journal of anaesthesiaArticle
Corrections and comments
- Retraction · 2020-05-30Falsification/Fabrication of Data · Investigation by Journal/Publisher · Objections by Third Party · Plagiarism of/in Article ·
- Retracted
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSpinal anesthesia has replaced general anesthesia in obstetric practice. Hemodynamic instability is a common, but preventable complication of spinal anesthesia. Preloading the circulation with intravenous fluids is considered a safe and effective method of preventing hypotension following spinal anesthesia. We had conducted a study to compare the hemodynamic stability after volume preloading with either Ringer's lactate (RL) or tetrastarch hydroxyethyl starch (HES) or succinylated gelatin (SG) in the patients undergoing cesarean section under spinal anesthesia. MATERIALS AND
methodsIt was a prospective, double-blinded and randomized controlled study. Ninety six ASA-I healthy, nonlaboring parturients were randomly divided in 3 groups HES, SG, RL (n = 32 each) and received 10 ml/kg HES 130/0.4; 10 ml/kg SG (4% modified fluid gelatin) and 20 ml/kg RL respectively prior to SA scheduled for cesarean section. Heart rate, blood pressure (BP), oxygen saturation was measured.
resultsThe fall in systolic blood pressure (SBP) (<100 mm Hg) noted among 5 (15.63%), 12 (37.5%) and 14 (43.75%) parturients in groups HES, SG, RL respectively. Vasopressor (phenylephrine) was used to treat hypotension when SBP <90 mm Hg. Both the results and APGAR scores were comparable in all the groups. Lower preloading volume and less intra-operative vasopressor requirement was noted in HES group for maintaining BP though it has no clinical significance.
conclusionRL which is cheap, physiological and widely available crystalloid can preload effectively and maintain hemodynamic stability well in cesarean section and any remnant hypotension can easily be manageable with vasopressor.
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.