Observational studyBrazilian journal of anesthesiology (Elsevier)
Effect of anesthetic technique on the quality of anesthesia recovery for abdominal histerectomy: a cross-observational study.
Observational study in Brazilian journal of anesthesiology (Elsevier). 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparing the Quality of Patient Recovery After Open Appendectomy Under General Versus Spinal Anesthesia: Prospective Cohort Study.JMIR perioperative medicine · 2026Article
- Comparison of combined spinal-epidural versus general anesthesia with epidural catheter on postoperative quality of recovery after abdominal hysterectomy: a prospective observational study.BMC anesthesiology · 2025Observational
- Comparison of the effects of spinal anesthesia, paracervical block and general anesthesia on pain, nausea and vomiting, and analgesic requirements in diagnostic hysteroscopy: A non-randomized clinical trial.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Article
- Efficacy of High-Quality Nursing Service for the Patients during the Anesthesia Recovery Period: A Meta-Analysis.Applied bionics and biomechanics · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionSpinal anesthesia combined with sedation and general anesthesia combined with epidural are two techniques often used for patients undergoing abdominal hysterectomy. There is no consensus that one of these techniques is superior regarding the perception of patients towards the quality of postoperative recovery. This observational cross-sectional study aimed to assess the quality of postoperative recovery in women undergoing open abdominal hysterectomy by comparing both anesthetic techniques.
methodWe recruited 162 women aged between 30 and 74 years to be submitted to abdominal hysterectomy. The anesthetic technique used followed the preference of the attending anesthesiologist without interference of the investigators. After applying the exclusion criteria, 80 patients underwent spinal anesthesia combined with sedation (Group 1) and 62 women underwent epidural anesthesia combined with general anesthesia (Group 2). The quality of postoperative recovery was evaluated using the questionnaire Quality of Recovery-40 (QoR-40) completed 24 hours after the end of the surgery.
resultsEighty patients in Group 1 answered the QoR-40 questionnaire with an average rating of 179.4 points, median of 186.5, standard deviation of 17.4 and a confidence interval of 3.8. The 60 patients in Group 2 answered the QoR-40 with an average of 174.9 points, median of 178 points, standard deviation of 16 points and a confidence interval of 4.0 (p = 0.024).
conclusionWomen who received spinal anesthesia combined with sedation considered quality of postoperative recovery better.
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.