Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34448492›Full record

SynthesisAnaesthesia2021

Efficacy and safety of intrathecal morphine for analgesia after lower joint arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis with meta-regression and trial sequential analysis.

E Gonvers, K El-Boghdadly, S Grape, E Albrecht

Registry-linked trialOpen access · hybridAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Anaesthesia, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06317870 (Pericapsular Nerve Block Versus Intrathecal Morphine for Analgesia After Primary Hip Arthroplasty), which is not on this map. Cited by 29 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed
5.4field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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.

NCT06317870 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

Pericapsular Nerve Block Versus Intrathecal Morphine for Analgesia After Primary Hip Arthroplasty: a Double Blind, Non-inferiority Study

TypeinterventionalSponsorCentre Hospitalier Universitaire VaudoisRan2024 to 2027Enrolled80ConditionsAnalgesia, Hip Arthropathy, Post Operative PainArmsIntrathecal morphine, Pericapsular nerve group block (PENG)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

29 citing papers in PubMed, 46 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Implementation of an ERASJournal of clinical medicine · 2026
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. The intrathecal morphine analgesia for full endoscopic lumbar discectomy: a prospective dose-finding study.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2025
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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 3 institutions in 2 countries.

E GonversDepartment of Anaesthesia, University Hospital of Lausanne and University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
K El-BoghdadlyDepartment of Anaesthesia, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
S GrapeDepartment of Anaesthesia, Valais Hospital, Sion, Switzerland.
E AlbrechtDepartment of Anaesthesia, University Hospital of Lausanne and University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
University of Lausanne · CHHôpital du Valais · CHKing's College London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Widespread adoption of intrathecal morphine into clinical practice is hampered by concerns about its potential side-effects. We undertook a systematic review, meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis with the primary objective of determining the efficacy and safety of intrathecal morphine. Our secondary objective was to determine the dose associated with greatest efficacy and safety. We also assessed the impact of intrathecal morphine on respiratory depression. We systematically searched the literature for trials comparing intrathecal morphine with a control group in patients undergoing hip or knee arthroplasty under spinal anaesthesia. Our primary efficacy outcome was rest pain score (0-10) at 8-12 hours; our primary safety outcome was the rate of postoperative nausea and vomiting within 24 hours. Twenty-nine trials including 1814 patients were identified. Rest pain score at 8-12 hours was significantly reduced in the intrathecal morphine group, with a mean difference (95%CI) of -1.7 (-2.0 to -1.3), p < 0.0001 (19 trials; 1420 patients; high-quality evidence), without sub-group differences between doses (p = 0.35). Intrathecal morphine increased postoperative nausea and vomiting, with a risk ratio (95%CI) of 1.4 (1.3-1.6), p < 0.0001 (24 trials; 1603 patients; high-quality evidence). However, a sub-group analysis by dose revealed that rates of postoperative nausea and vomiting within 24 hours were similar between groups at a dose of 100 µg, while the risk significantly increased with larger doses (p value for sub-group difference = 0.02). Patients receiving intrathecal morphine were no more likely to have respiratory depression, the risk ratio (95%CI) being 0.9 (0.5-1.7), p = 0.78 (16 trials; 1173 patients; high-quality evidence). In conclusion, there is good evidence that intrathecal morphine provides effective analgesia after lower limb arthroplasty, without an increased risk of respiratory depression, but at the expense of an increased rate of postoperative nausea and vomiting. A dose of 100 µg is a 'ceiling' dose for analgesia and a threshold dose for increased rate of postoperative nausea and vomiting.

Indexed as

Analgesics, OpioidArthroplasty, Replacement, KneeHumansInjections, SpinalMorphinePostoperative Nausea and VomitingPostoperative PainRespiratory InsufficiencyAnalgesics, OpioidMorphineanalgesiahip arthroplastyknee arthroplastypostoperative painspinal anaesthesia

Identifiers

PMID34448492
PMCPMC9292760
OpenAlexW3194066712

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

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.