ArticleTurkish journal of anaesthesiology and reanimation2022
A Randomized Double-Blind Study Evaluating Intraperitoneal Ropivacaine Nebulization With and Without Nalbuphine for Post-operative Analgesia in Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy.
Article in Turkish journal of anaesthesiology and reanimation, 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, 1 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
6 authors at 1 institution.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveLocal anaesthetics administered into the peritoneal cavity have been successfully used for post-operative pain relief in minimally invasive laparoscopic procedures. We intended to study and compare nebulized intraperitoneal ropivacaine with and without nalbuphine, with a placebo for post-operative pain relief in these surgeries.
methodsA prospective, randomized double-blinded study was conducted over a period of 1 year after institutional ethical clearance, in patients undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Subjects were randomized into 3 groups (S: saline, R: ropivacaine, RN: ropiva- caine plus nalbuphine). The pain was assessed in the post-operative period using NRS scores (up to 24 hours). Kruskal-Wallis test was used for comparison, P < .05 was considered significant. Time to first rescue analgesia, total opioid requirement, and side effects were also recorded.
resultsGroups were similar in terms of demographic data. Patients in the placebo group reported higher NRS scores than the other 2 study groups till 4 hours post-operative (earlier rescue analgesia). The addition of nalbuphine did not cause any statistically significant improvement in post-operative pain relief (NRS) as compared to ropivacaine administered alone. Intraperitoneal ropivacaine nebulization had no significant adverse effect as compared to placebo.
conclusionsRopivacaine nebulization with or without nalbuphine is more effective than placebo for post-operative pain relief after lapa- roscopic cholecystectomy without significant side effects. Addition of nalbuphine to ropivacaine nebulization does not significantly improve pain relief after laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
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.