ArticleJournal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacology
Continuous spinal analgesia with levobupivacaine for postoperative pain management: Comparison of 0.125% versus 0.0625% in elective total knee and hip replacement: A double-blind randomized study.
Article in Journal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Impedance cardiography as tool for continuous hemodynamic monitoring during cesarean section: randomized, prospective double blind study.BMC anesthesiology · 2018Trial
- Thromboembolic complications were not different between intravenous and epidural analgesia after unilateral knee arthroplasty under neuraxial anesthesia: a propensity-score matched analysis.Perioperative medicine (London, England) · 2026Article
- Cardiovascular Outcomes in Advanced Maternal Age Delivering Women. Clinical Review and Medico-Legal Issues.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsContinuous spinal anesthesia (CSA) has not been widely used for postoperative analgesia, mainly to avoid complications from the subarachnoid injection. Recently, the introduction of low caliber CSA catheters (Spinocath(®)), has allowed to decrease anesthetics doses and volumes with good analgesia and reduced complications. The aim of this present study was to compare two concentrations of levobupivacaine administered through CSA for postoperative pain management after major orthopedic surgery. Secondary outcomes were adverse events associated with CSA. MATERIAL AND
methodsThirty-two patients were randomized to receive sufentanil 1 mcg/h plus levobupivacaine 0.125%-1 ml/h (Group A0.125) or 0.0625%-2 ml/h (Group B0.0625) for postoperative analgesia through CSA catheter, connected to the elastomeric pump over 48 h. The quality of analgesia was assessed based on pain intensity by Visual Analogic Scale (VAS). Sensory and motor function, hemodynamic, and respiratory parameters were recorded for 96 h after surgery, after which the catheter was removed. In addition, joint mobility was assessed, and any side effects were noted.
resultsVAS score was ≤30 mm in 25 patients. Three patients in Group A0.125 and 4 in Group B0.0625 (NS), received a rescue dose of levobupivacaine. Median VAS in Group A0.125 was lower than in Group B0.0625 on T1 h (8 ± 11 vs 16 ± 11; P < 0.05), and on T4 h (11 ± 8 vs 18 ± 1; P < 0.05). All patients remained hemodynamically stable. There were no significant differences between groups for postoperative joints mobility.
conclusionLevobupivacaine at a dose of 1.25 mg/h administered by CSA provides good quality analgesia independent of concentration and solution volume in patients undergoing total knee and hip replacement.
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.