Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28088218›Full record

Trial reportTrials2017

Spinal versus general anaesthesia in surgery for inguinodynia (SPINASIA trial): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

Willem A R Zwaans, Léon H P M le Mair, Marc R M Scheltinga, Rudi M H Roumen

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Trials, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 28% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Willem A R ZwaansDepartment of General Surgery, Máxima Medical Centre, PO Box 7777, 5500 MB, Veldhoven/Eindhoven, The Netherlands. willemzwaans@gmail.com.
Léon H P M le MairDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Máxima Medical Centre, Veldhoven, The Netherlands.
Marc R M ScheltingaDepartment of General Surgery, Máxima Medical Centre, PO Box 7777, 5500 MB, Veldhoven/Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
Rudi M H RoumenDepartment of General Surgery, Máxima Medical Centre, PO Box 7777, 5500 MB, Veldhoven/Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
Máxima Medisch Centrum · NLRadboud University Nijmegen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundChronic inguinodynia (groin pain) is a common complication following open inguinal hernia repair or a Pfannenstiel incision but may also be experienced after other types of (groin) surgery. If conservative treatments are to no avail, tailored remedial surgery, including a neurectomy and/or a (partial) meshectomy, may be considered. Retrospective studies in patients with chronic inguinodynia suggested that spinal anaesthesia is superior compared to general anaesthesia in terms of pain relief following remedial operations. This randomised controlled trial is designed to study the effect of type of anaesthesia (spinal or general) on pain relief following remedial surgery for inguinodynia.

methodsA total of 190 adult patients who suffer from unacceptable chronic (more than 3 months) inguinodynia, as subjectively judged by the patients themselves, are included. Only patients scheduled to undergo a neurectomy and/or a meshectomy by an open approach are considered for inclusion and randomised to spinal or general anaesthesia. Patients are excluded if pain is attributable to abdominal causes or if any contraindications for either type of anaesthesia are present. Primary outcome is effect of type of anaesthesia on pain relief. Secondary outcomes include patient satisfaction, quality of life, use of analgesics and (in)direct medical costs. Patient follow-up period is one year. DISCUSSION: The first patient was included in January 2016. The expected trial deadline is December 2019. Potential effects are deemed related to the entire setting of type of anaesthesia. Since any setting is multifactorial, all of these factors may influence the outcome measures. This is the first large randomised controlled trial comparing the two most frequently used anaesthetic techniques in remedial surgery for groin pain. There is a definite need for evidence-based strategies to optimise results of these types of surgery. Besides pain relief, other important patient-related outcome measures are assessed to include patient's perspectives on outcome.

trial registrationThe protocol (protocol number NL54115.015.15 ) is approved by the Medical Ethics Committee of Máxima Medical Centre, Veldhoven, The Netherlands. The study protocol was registered at www.trialregister.nl (NTR registration number: 5586) on 15 January 2016.

Indexed as

Anesthesia, GeneralAnesthesia, SpinalDenervationDevice RemovalAnalgesicsChronic PainClinical ProtocolsGroinHumansNetherlandsPain MeasurementPatient SatisfactionPostoperative PainQuality of LifeResearch DesignTime FactorsAnalgesicsAnesthesiaChronic painOperativePainPain managementPostoperativeRandomised controlled trail [publication type]Surgical procedures

Identifiers

PMID28088218
PMCPMC5237574
OpenAlexW2579167017

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.