ArticleAnnals of translational medicine2021
Comparing the minimum local anesthetic dose of ropivacaine in real-time ultrasound-guided spinal anesthesia and traditional landmark-guided spinal anesthesia: a randomized controlled trial of knee surgery patients.
Article in Annals of translational medicine, 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Minimum Local Anesthetic Dose of Ropivacaine in Cesarean Section for Real-Time Ultrasound-Guided Spinal Anesthesia Using 24-Gauge versus 26-Gauge Needles Based on Fluid Simulation Technology: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Drug design, development and therapy · 2024Trial
- Dural Puncture Epidural with 25-G Spinal Needles versus Conventional Epidural Technique in Conjunction with PIEB for Labor Analgesia: A Randomized Trial.Journal of pain research · 2023Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThrough previous studies and clinical practice, we have found that real-time ultrasound-guided (UG) spinal anesthesia (SA) and traditional landmark-guided (LG) SA each require a different minimum local anesthetic dose (MLAD) of ropivacaine. For this study, we used Dixon's up-and-down sequential method to analyze and compare the MLAD of different ropivacaine concentrations required for the UG and LG SA methods.
methodsA total of 120 patients undergoing knee surgery were consecutively recruited and randomly divided into four groups (30 patients per group). These groups were categorized as follows: Group I: high ropivacaine ultrasound-guided (HRUG), Group II: low ropivacaine ultrasound-guided (LRUG), Group III: high ropivacaine landmark-guided (HRLG), and Group IV: low ropivacaine landmark-guided (LRLG). SA was established by a bolus administration of up-and-down doses of 0.75% or 0.5% plain ropivacaine. Initial doses of 16, 18, 12, and 14 mg were administered to groups I-IV, and after that, increased or decreased by 1.5 mg according to dose effectiveness. Upon identifying the intervertebral puncture level, a lumbar X-ray was performed with metal markers, and actual radiographic findings were identified and compared to the initial markings.
resultsFor UG groups, the MLAD in the LRUG group was significantly higher than in the HRUG group [20.192 mg (95% CI, 19.256-21.174) versus 17.176 mg (95% CI, 16.276-18.124), respectively; P<0.001]. For LG groups, the MLAD in the LRLG group was significantly higher than in the HLRG group [14.478 mg (95% CI, 13.364-15.500) versus 13.201 mg (95% CI, 11.959-14.571), respectively; P=0.047]. When comparing both high ropivacaine groups (HRGs: I/III) to the low ropivacaine groups (LRGs: II/IV), we found that both UG subgroups (I/II) had a significantly higher MLAD than LG subgroups (III/IV) (P<0.001). US identified L4-5 in up to 90% of cases. Comparatively, palpation was successful in only 33.3% of patients. The rates of cephalad localization by US and palpation were 6.67%
conclusionsWe found a higher MLAD of ropivacaine was required for UG SA at the L4-5 level due to the method providing a more accurate (less cephalad) localization than traditional LG SA.
trial registrationChinese Clinical Trial Registry ChiCTR2000033158.
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.