Trial reportKorean journal of anesthesiology2021
Prevention of epidural catheter migration: a comparative evaluation of two tunneling techniques.
Trial report in Korean journal of anesthesiology, 2021. 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.
- Prevention of Epidural Catheter Migration and Inflammation by Tunneling: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Transparency considerations for describing statistical analyses in research.Korean journal of anesthesiology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEpidural analgesia failure episodes can be reduced by catheter fixation techniques with a lower incidence of catheter migration. In this clinical study, we compared the roles of two epidural catheter tunneling techniques for the prevention of epidural catheter migration.
methodsPatients undergoing major abdominal surgery were randomized into three groups of 50 patients each based on the method used to secure the epidural catheter. In the control group (CG), the epidural catheter was secured without tunneling. Tunneling groups 1 and 2 (TG1 and TG2) were defined as tunneling with and without a catheter loop, respectively. The primary outcome measure was the migration of the epidural catheter, while the secondary outcome measures were the adequacy of analgesia and signs of inflammation. All patients were followed up by the acute pain service team twice daily in the postoperative period until the epidural catheter was removed. The results were analyzed by the one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), chi-square test, and Fisher's exact test. P values <0.050 were considered significant.
resultsThe three groups were similar with respect to patient characteristics. Catheter migration was significantly reduced in TG2 (two patients) compared to those in the other two groups, i.e., TG1 (eight patients) (P = 0.045) and CG (17 patients) (P = 0.001). No differences were found amongst the three groups in analgesia adequacy and catheter site inflammation (P > 0.050).
conclusionsCatheter migration was significantly reduced by tunneling without a catheter loop in TG2 as compared to the other two groups. Therefore, we suggest routine use of tunneling without a catheter loop technique in anesthesia practice and look forward to future studies with larger sample sizes.
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.