Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27778056›Full record

ReviewDer Anaesthesist2016

[Unilateral spinal anesthesia : Literature review and recommendations].

B Büttner, A Mansur, M Bauer, J Hinz, I Bergmann

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Der Anaesthesist, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. A Narrative Review on Multimodal Spinal Anesthesia: Old Technique and New Use.Journal of anesthesia and translational medicine · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

B BüttnerKlinik für Anästhesiologie, Universitätsmedizin Göttingen, Robert-Koch Str. 40, 37075, Göttingen, Deutschland. benedikt.buettner@med.uni-goettingen.de.
A MansurKlinik für Anästhesiologie und Intensivmedizin, Universitätsklinikum Essen, Hufelandstr. 55, 45122, Essen, Deutschland.
M BauerKlinik für Anästhesiologie, Universitätsmedizin Göttingen, Robert-Koch Str. 40, 37075, Göttingen, Deutschland.
J HinzKlinik für Anästhesiologie, Universitätsmedizin Göttingen, Robert-Koch Str. 40, 37075, Göttingen, Deutschland.
I BergmannKlinik für Anästhesiologie, Universitätsmedizin Göttingen, Robert-Koch Str. 40, 37075, Göttingen, Deutschland.
Universitätsmedizin Göttingen · DEEssen University Hospital · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Unilateral spinal anesthesia is a cost-effective and rapidly performed anesthetic technique. An exclusively unilateral block only affects the sensory, motor and sympathetic functions on one side of the body and offers the advantages of a spinal block without the typical adverse side effects seen with a bilateral block. The lack of hypotension, in particular, makes unilateral spinal anesthesia suitable for patients with cardiovascular risk factors e. g. aortic valve stenosis or coronary artery disease. Increasing numbers of surgical procedures are now being performed on an outpatient basis. Until now, spinal anesthesia has been considered unsuitable for this, not only because of the high incidence of intraoperative hypotension and postoperative urinary retention but also because of the prolonged postoperative stay before home discharge. This is not the case with unilateral spinal anesthesia: motor function returns rapidly, the incidence of urinary retention is extremely low, and patients are usually eligible for home discharge sooner than after bilateral spinal anesthesia or general anesthesia. The success of the technique depends on a number of factors. In addition to the local anesthetic, its concentration and dose, and the baricity of the injected solution, the shape of the spinal needle, the injection speed, the patient's position during injection, and the time the patient remains in this position after injection are equally important parameters. A number of intrathecally applied adjuvant drugs are used to give a more intense and/or longer-lasting block. For this review, we collated the published data on unilateral spinal anesthesia from journals with an impact factor greater than 1.0 and defined an optimized method for performing the technique. In order to achieve an exclusively unilateral block one should use 0.5 % hyperbaric bupivacaine injected at a rate of 0.33 ml/min or slower. During the injection and the following 20 min the patient should lie in the lateral decubitus position on the side intended for surgery with knees drawn to the chest. An injection of 5 mg (1 ml) hyperbaric bupivacaine 0.5 % provides an hour-long block to T 12, and a dose of 7.5 to 10 mg (1.5-2.0 ml) extends the block to T 6. Adding clonidine (0.5 to 1.0 µg/kg BW) to the injection prolongs the duration of the block to approximately two to three hours. During the 20-minute fixation period, the cephalad spread of the block can be influenced to a certain extent by raising or lowering the head of the table.

Indexed as

Anesthesia, SpinalAnesthetics, LocalHumansNerve BlockAnesthetics, LocalHemodynamicsInjection speedLocal anestheticSympathetic blockUnilateral spinal anesthesia

Identifiers

PMID27778056
OpenAlexW2545686024

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.