Trial reportInternational urogynecology journal2019
Randomized double-blind trial of short- versus long-acting analgesia at the sacrospinous ligament.
Trial report in International urogynecology journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Liposomal bupivacaine-No breakthrough in postoperative pain management].Die Anaesthesiologie · 2022Review
- Update in native tissue vaginal vault prolapse repair.International urogynecology journal · 2020Article
- Prolapse Repair Using Non-synthetic Material: What is the Current Standard?Current urology reports · 2019Review
- Letter to the editor: Randomized double-blind trial of short- versus long-acting analgesia at the sacrospinous ligament.International urogynecology journal · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisPain control is a key component of postoperative care; our objective was to evaluate if use of long-acting local anesthesia at the sacrospinous ligament leads to decreased postoperative pain versus short-acting local anesthesia in patients undergoing sacrospinous ligament fixation.
methodsWomen ≥ 18 years old undergoing sacrospinous ligament fixation to treat pelvic organ prolapse were eligible to participate in this randomized trial. Enrolled patients were randomized 1:1 to one of two study arms: (1) lidocaine arm (LA) or (2) liposomal bupivacaine arm (LBA). Patients in the LA received 30 ml 0.5% lidocaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine local injection at the sacrospinous ligament. Patients in the LBA received 20 ml 1.3% bupivacaine liposomal mixed with 10 ml 0.5% bupivacaine at the sacrospinous ligament. All patients received 50 ml 0.5% lidocaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine for anterior and/or posterior colporrhaphy. The primary outcome of this study was postoperative buttock pain.
resultsOf the 37 patients enrolled, 33 completed study procedures. Mean age (± SD) was 62.3 years (± 11.6) in the LA and 66.8 years (± 14.4) in the LBA (p = 0.32). All participants underwent sacrospinous ligament fixation; the rate of concomitant procedures did not differ between study arms. Visual analog scale scores for buttock-specific pain were compared between arms at 1, 3, 6, 12, 24, 36, 48, 72, 96, and 120 h postoperatively, and no differences were found.
conclusionsUse of long-acting local analgesia at the sacrospinous ligament at the time of sacrospinous ligament fixation does not provide any benefit over short-acting local analgesia.
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.