ArticleEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2016
Pain control following posterior spine fusion: patient-controlled continuous epidural catheter infusion method yields better post-operative analgesia control compared to intravenous patient controlled analgesia method. A retrospective case series.
Article in European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Wound Infiltration with Levobupivacaine, Ketorolac, and Adrenaline for Postoperative Pain Control after Spinal Fusion Surgery.Asian spine journal · 2021Article
- Wound infiltration with ropivacaine as an adjuvant to patient controlled analgesia for transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a retrospective study.BMC anesthesiology · 2020Article
- Clarifying the distinction between case series and cohort studies in systematic reviews of comparative studies: potential impact on body of evidence and workload.BMC medical research methodology · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposePain management following posterior spinal fusion surgeries is a challenging topic. Continuous epidural analgesia (CEA) technique has been invented to resolve some deleterious effects related with conventional intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IV-PCA) method. However, studies for effectiveness and safety of CEA are scarce in adult population. Our aim was to compare effectiveness and safety of patient-controlled CEA with conventional IV-PCA method in adult patient population.
methodsChart review of patients, scheduled for elective posterior spine fusion to treat spinal stenosis, degenerative disc disease, spondylolisthesis or spinal instability from May 2012 to March 2015, was performed. Patients with spinal infection, cancer, inflammatory disease, and ASA higher than class III, allergy to analgesic medications were excluded from the study. One hundred and nine patients were enrolled into the study. 80 out of 109 patients (40 in CEA group, 40 in IV-PCA group) were matched for age, gender, BMI, type of surgery, level of fusions. Visual Analog Scale scores (VAS) and Ramsay Sedation Scale (RSS) scores were evaluated following surgeries until post-operative 24th hour.
resultsThere were 58 female patients (72.5 %). The mean age of the patients was 59.85 years (range 24-82 years). When VAS and RSS scores were compared between the groups, there were statistically significant differences between the groups in respect of VAS scores at every time point following surgery (lower in CEA group), whereas there was no significant difference between the groups in respect of RSS scores. More additional analgesia medication was needed in IV-PCA group (16 vs. 5 patients), which was significantly higher than CEA group (p = 0.029).
conclusionsPatient-controlled CEA method is as safe as IV-PCA method and is even more effective than that in controlling immediate post-operative pain in patients treated with posterior spinal fusion.
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.