ArticleCureus2022
Wound Infiltration and Instillation Technique for Postoperative Analgesia Using Bupivacaine in Patients Undergoing Lumbar Spine Surgeries.
Article in Cureus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPain relief after surgery continues to be a major medical challenge in clinical practice. Lumbar spine surgery is associated with significant postoperative pain. Providing optimal analgesia locally in the area of surgical wound, with little systemic side-effects, is a favourable option and has become an intrinsic part of multimodal analgesia. We aimed to assess and compare the effectiveness of local infiltration and instillation of bupivacaine for postoperative analgesia in patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery. MATERIALS AND
methodsForty-four adult patients of the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class I and II were randomly assigned into two groups, incorporating 22 patients per group. After the completion of lumbar spine surgery and after hemostasis was achieved, patients in group A received instillation of 20 ml of 0.25% bupivacaine at the surgical wound site and patients in group B received 20 ml of 0.25% bupivacaine infiltration into the paravertebral muscles on either side. Postoperative numerical rating scale (NRS) pain scores at 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 14, 20, and 24 hours; the time to first analgesic required, total rescue analgesic consumption, and adverse effects were recorded. Statistical analysis was done using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 20.0 (Released 2011; IBM Corp, Armonk, New York, United States).
resultsTime to the first analgesic requirement was significantly longer in group A (12.39±1.56 hours) compared to the B group (2.48±0.58 hours) (P < 0.001). The amount of rescue analgesia (diclofenac sodium) required was significantly higher in group B (135.00±46.17 milligrams) compared to A (93.75±33.32 milligrams) (P = 0.001). The number of analgesic demands was higher in the infiltration group compared to the instillation group and was observed to be statistically significant. Hemodynamic parameters remained comparable between the groups.
conclusionLocal instillation of surgical wound site provided better pain control than infiltration technique and is effective and safe postoperative analgesia in patients undergoing laminectomy surgeries.
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.