Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33629206›Full record

ArticleJournal of experimental orthopaedics2021

Intrathecal chloroprocaine or hyperbaric prilocaine for ambulatory knee surgery? A prospective randomized study.

E Guntz, C Vasseur, D Ifrim, A Louvard, J F Fils, Y Kapessidou

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of experimental orthopaedics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 28% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

E GuntzDepartment of Anesthesiology, Hôpital Braine L'Alleud Waterloo, Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), 35 rue Wayez, 1420, Braine l'Alleud-Waterloo, Belgium. eguntz@ulb.ac.be.
C VasseurDepartment of Anesthesiology, Hôpital Braine L'Alleud Waterloo, Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), 35 rue Wayez, 1420, Braine l'Alleud-Waterloo, Belgium.
D IfrimDepartment of Anesthesiology, Hôpital Braine L'Alleud Waterloo, Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), 35 rue Wayez, 1420, Braine l'Alleud-Waterloo, Belgium.
A LouvardDepartment of Anesthesiology, Hôpital Braine L'Alleud Waterloo, Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), 35 rue Wayez, 1420, Braine l'Alleud-Waterloo, Belgium.
J F FilsIndependant Biostatistician - Ars Statistica, Nivelles, Belgium.
Y KapessidouDepartment of Anesthesiology, CHU St Pierre, ULB, 322 rue Haute, 1000, Bruxelles, Belgium.
UCB Pharma (Belgium) · BEUniversité Libre de Bruxelles · BECentre Hospitalier Universitaire de Saint-Pierre · BEStatistics Belgium · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe aim of this study was to compare intrathecal 1% chloroprocaine with 2% hyperbaric prilocaine in the setting of ambulatory knee arthroscopy. We hypothesized that complete resolution of the sensory block was faster with chloroprocaine.

methodsEighty patients scheduled for knee arthroscopy were included in this prospective randomized double-blind study. Spinal anesthesia was performed with either chloroprocaine (50 mg) or hyperbaric prilocaine (50 mg). Characteristics of sensory and motor blocks and side effects were recorded.

resultsMean time to full sensory block recovery was shorter with chloroprocaine (169 (56.1) min vs 248 (59.4)). The characteristics of the sensory blocks were similar at the T12 dermatome level between the two groups. Differences appeared at T10: the percentage of patients with a sensory block was higher, onset quicker and duration longer with hyperbaric prilocaine. The number of patients with a sensory block at T4 dermatome level in both groups was minimal. Times to full motor recovery were identical in both groups (85 (70-99) vs 86 (76-111) min). Time to spontaneous voiding was shorter with chloroprocaine (203 (57.6) min vs 287.3 (47.2) min). Incidence of side effects was low in both groups.

conclusionsWhen considering the characteristics of the sensory block, the use of chloroprocaine may allow an earlier discharge of patients. Cephalic extension was to a higher dermatomal level and the sensory block at T10 level was of prolonged duration with hyperbaric prilocaine, suggesting that the choice between the two drugs should also be performed based on the level of the sensory block requested by the surgery. This study is registered in the US National Clinical Trials Registry, registration number: NCT030389 , the first of February 2017, Retrospectively registered.

Indexed as

ChloroprocaineHyperbaric prilocaineProspective studySensory blockSpinal anesthesia

Identifiers

PMID33629206
PMCPMC7905001
OpenAlexW3132787169

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.