Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32765653›Full record

ArticleExperimental and therapeutic medicine2020

Comparing post-operative analgesic effects of varying doses of dexmedetomidine as an adjuvant to ropivacaine for ultrasound-guided dual transversus abdominis plane block following laparotomy for gynecologic malignancies.

Yuexiang Zeng, Yiyun Wen, Jinfeng Yang, Huiping Sun

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Experimental and therapeutic medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 27% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Dexmedetomidine as an Adjuvant in Peripheral Nerve Block.Drug design, development and therapy · 2023
    Review
  8. Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.

Yuexiang ZengDepartment of Anesthesiology, Hunan Cancer Hospital, Changsha, Hunan 410013, P.R. China.
Yiyun WenDepartment of Anesthesiology, Hunan Cancer Hospital, Changsha, Hunan 410013, P.R. China.
Jinfeng YangDepartment of Anesthesiology, Hunan Cancer Hospital, Changsha, Hunan 410013, P.R. China.
Huiping SunDepartment of Anesthesiology, Hunan Cancer Hospital, Changsha, Hunan 410013, P.R. China.
Hunan Cancer Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aim of the present study was to determine the analgesic effects of ropivacaine combined with different doses of dexmedetomidine for ultrasound-guided transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block immediately following laparotomy in patients with gynecologic malignancies. A further aim was to determine the appropriate clinical dose of dexmedetomidine as an adjuvant for ropivacaine. Patients with gynecologic malignancies scheduled for laparotomy were randomly assigned to group R (TAP block with 0.3% ropivacaine), group RD1 (TAP block with ropivacaine and 0.5 µg/kg dexmedetomidine), group RD2 (TAP block with ropivacaine and 1 µg/kg dexmedetomidine) and group RD3 (TAP block with ropivacaine and 2 µg/kg dexmedetomidine). TAP blocks were performed post-operatively. The four groups all received patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA) after the operation. The numerical rating scale (NRS) as well as the Ramsay sedation scale (RSS) scores, the first request time for PCIA bolus, oxycodone hydrochloride consumption, the plasma concentration of ropivacaine, the incidence of post-operative complications and adverse events, and patient satisfaction were recorded. Post-operative NRS scores at rest exhibited significant differences between the R group and all the RD groups at 24 h after surgery (P<0.05). Compared with the other groups, the NRS score in the RD3 group was decreased (P<0.05). The RSS scores were higher in all of the RD groups compared with those in the R group at 2 h (P<0.05) and were highest in the RD3 group compared with those in all other groups at 4 h (P<0.05). The first request time for PCIA was significantly longer in the RD3 group compared with that in the RD2, RD1 and R groups (510.47±102.67, 595.47±100.11, 682.43±104.46 and 776.42±143.91 min, respectively; P<0.05). Cumulative opioid consumption based on the number of PCIA bolus requested at 24 and 48 h post-operatively indicated that the total number of PCIA boluses was significantly lower in the RD groups compared with those in the R group at 24 and 48 h (P<0.05). The ropivacaine concentration did not differ among the four groups. There was no significant difference between groups with respect to post-operative nausea and vomiting, bradycardia and hypotension; however, all RD groups had a higher patient satisfaction than group R (P<0.05). Compared with that in the other groups, the duration of post-anesthesia care unit stay in group RD3 was relatively longer due to excessive sedation (P<0.05). In conclusion, TAP blockade using 0.5-2 µg/kg dexmedetomidine combined with 0.3% ropivacaine is a safe and effective treatment for analgesia in laparotomy procedures for gynecologic malignancies. The study was registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (CHICTR; www.chictr.org.cn) on January 15th, 2019 (registration no. ChiCTR1900020995).

Indexed as

adjuvantdexmedetomidineropivacainetransversus abdominis plane

Identifiers

PMID32765653
PMCPMC7388559
OpenAlexW3026970913

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.