ArticleIndian journal of anaesthesia2018
Continuous spinal anaesthesia: A retrospective analysis of 318 cases.
Article in Indian journal of anaesthesia, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Neurological Deficits Following Regional Anesthesia and Pain Interventions: Reviewing Current Standards of Care.Pain and therapy · 2025Review
- Comparison of block characteristics and outcomes in opioid-free and opioid-based thoracic continuous spinal anaesthesia in patients undergoing major abdominal surgery: A double-blinded randomised controlled trial.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2024Article
- Quadratus Lumborum Block for Ovarian Cystectomy Surgery in a Patient With Severe Kyphoscoliosis.Cureus · 2024Article
- Article
- Continuous spinal anaesthesia.BJA education · 2022Article
- Awake Da Vinci robotic partial nephrectomy: First case report ever in a situation of need.Urology case reports · 2022Article
- Continuous spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section in a patient with peripartum cardiomyopathy.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2019Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsContinuous spinal anaesthesia (CSA) is an underutilised anaesthetic technique. Our objectives were to evaluate the use of CSA in our institution, its efficacy, ease to use and safety.
methodsThis was a retrospective analysis conducted in a tertiary centre. Records of all patients who underwent surgery and received CSA between December 2008 and July 2017 were reviewed. Their demographic profiles, type and duration of surgery were analysed. The outcomes measured were the success of CSA, technical evaluation and difficulties encountered, intraoperative haemodynamics, usage of vasopressors and any reported complications. Statistical analysis was done using Chi-square test.
resultsThree hundred and eighteen patients (94%) successfully underwent surgery using CSA. Twenty cases (6%) had failed CSA, of which five of them had CSA insertion failure, while the rest failed to complete the operation under CSA, thus requiring conversion to general anaesthesia. Patients who have had an initial intrathecal local anaesthetic (LA) volume ≥1.5 ml had higher odds (odds ratio (OR) 2.78; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.70-4.57) of developing hypotension compared to those who had <1.5 ml (
conclusionCSA is a useful anaesthetic technique with low failure rate. The key to achieving haemodynamic stability is by giving a small initial bolus, then titrating the block up to required height using aliquots of 0.5 ml of intrathecal LA through the catheter.
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.