ArticleAnesthesia, essays and researches
Comparison of Effect of Airway Nebulization with Lignocaine 2% versus Ropivacaine 0.25% on Intubation and Extubation Response in Patients Undergoing Surgery under General Anesthesia: A Randomized Double-Blind Clinical Trial.
Article in Anesthesia, essays and researches. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Multimodal prevention of emergence cough following nasal endoscopic surgery under general anesthesia: a double-blind randomized trial.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
- Comparison of nebulized ropivacaine (0.75%) with nebulized dexmedetomidine on the hemodynamic response on intubation in patients undergoing surgery under general anesthesia: A comparative randomized double-blind placebo-controlled study.Saudi journal of anaesthesiaArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
contextBoth intubation and extubation are associated with pressor response.
aimsWe aimed to evaluate if ropivacaine 0.25% nebulization would prevent hemodynamic and cough responses to intubation and extubation and compared it with lignocaine 2% and saline group. SETTINGS AND
designThis was a randomized double-blind clinical trial. MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 75 patients classified as the American Society of Anaesthesiologists physical status Classes I and II belonging to 18-60 years were included in the randomized double-blind trial and divided into three groups; Group 1: received 5 ml of normal saline, Group 2: received 5 ml of 0.25% ropivacaine, Group 3: received 5 ml of 2% lignocaine through nebulization before the induction. Patients were then administered general anesthesia. Mean arterial pressure (MAP), heart rate (HR), and saturation were recorded at baseline (T1), at intubation (T2), upon anesthetic withdrawal (T3), upon eye opening (T4), upon extubation (T5), and 2 min after extubation (T6). Cough response was recorded at emergence and extubation. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED: Repeated measures analysis of variance were used to compare hemodynamic variables and Chi-square test to compare the grades of cough between the two groups.
resultsThe drug ropivacaine was found to be effective in reducing the hemodynamic responses to both intubation and extubation when compared to saline (
conclusionRopivacaine when used through nebulization preinduction effectively reduced both intubation and extubation responses when compared to saline. However, there was no significant difference between the ropivacaine and lignocaine on extubation response.
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.