ArticleWorld journal of clinical cases2022
Dural puncture epidural technique provides better anesthesia quality in repeat cesarean delivery than epidural technique: Randomized controlled study.
Article in World journal of clinical cases, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Epidural analgesia versus dural puncture epidural analgesia in labouring parturients: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.British journal of anaesthesia · 2025Pooled it
- Randomized controlled trial on effect of different routes of dexmedetomidine on Haemodynamics in patients undergoing saphenectomy under epidural anaesthesia.Scientific reports · 2025Trial
- Effect of Dural-Puncture Epidural vs Standard Epidural for Epidural Extension on Onset Time of Surgical Anesthesia in Elective Cesarean Delivery: A Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2023Trial
- The optimal dose of dexmedetomidine as a 0.59% ropivacaine adjuvant for epidural anesthesia in great saphenous varicose vein surgery, based on hemodynamics and anesthesia efficacy: a randomized, controlled, double-blind clinical trial.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRepeat cesarean deliverys involve a longer surgery and more severe visceral traction than primary cesarean deliverys. The dural puncture epidural (DPE) technique provides faster and more effective analgesia for labor, but there is no sufficient evidence to indicate whether it is suitable for parturients undergoing repeat cesarean delivery.
aimTo determine the efficacy and safety of the DPE anesthesia technique in patients undergoing repeat cesarean delivery.
methodsPatients undergoing repeat cesarean delivery were randomly divided into the DPE and epidural anesthesia (EA) groups. A 25-G spinal needle was used for dural puncture
resultsA total of 115 women were included (EA: 57, DPE: 58). The mean time to sensory block to the T6 Level was significantly shorter in the DPE group than in the EA group (14.7 min
conclusionThe DPE technique provided higher-quality anesthesia than the EA technique, with a rapid onset of surgical anesthesia, better cranial and sacral sensory block spread and a higher motor block degree, without increasing the incidence of maternal or fetal side effects in patients undergoing repeat cesarean delivery.
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.