ArticleGlobal journal of health science2016
Pilonidal Sinus Operations Performed Under Local Anesthesia versus the General Anesthesia: Clinical Trial Study.
Article in Global journal of health science, 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Pain management in abdominal surgery.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2018Review
- Role of ultrasound-guided sacral erector spinae plane block for post-operative analgesia in pilonidal sinus surgery: A randomised 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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundsVarious methods were defined to prepare patients for the pilonidal sinus surgery including local, spinal, and general anesthesia. But there is no powerful evidence to differ these procedures. Therefore, in the current study, we compared local and general anesthesia in the pilonidal sinus surgery. METHODS & MATERIAL: in this clinical trial (IRCT201312031786N5) study 60 patients with the pilonidal sinus disease divided to two groups of local anesthesia versus general anesthesia. For local anesthesia we used 6ml of 2% lidocaine with an epinephrine (1:200,000), 6ml of 0.5% bupivacaine, 1ml fentanyl (50μg/ml), 1ml clonidine (75μg/ml) and for general anesthesia fentanyl 1.5 μg.kg-1, thiopental 3-5 mg.kg-1, followed by the trachea intubation facilitated by atracurim 0.5 mg.kg-1 with maintenance of isoflurane 1-3% in nitrous oxygen 70% and oxygen 30%. The student t-test and Chi-square test were applied to evaluate the differences.
resultsthere were 30 patients with the mean age of 27.43±8.42 years in local anesthesia group and 30 cases with the mean age of 27.5±8.44 years underwent general anesthesia. The recovery time was significantly lower in the local anesthesia group (P=0.000). The oxygen saturation of the general anesthesia group was significantly higher at 1 and 20 minutes after the operation. The average of pain score was significantly higher in general anesthesia group at 3h and 6h after surgery (P<0.001). There were no significant differences in post-operative complications and hospital length of stay.
conclusionthis investigation revealed that local anesthesia has decreased pain during 48 hours after the surgery, shorter recovery time, and the less consumption of painkillers. So, we concluded that we can consider local anesthesia as a good alternative for the general anesthesia in the pilonidal sinus surgery.
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.