ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2022
Dual- vs. Single-Plane Ultrasonic Scan-Assisted Positioning during Lumbar Spinal Puncture in Elderly Patients: A Randomized Controlled Trial.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate the ability of single- versus dual-plane ultrasound scan-assisted spinal anesthesia techniques to improve the success rate and efficacy of spinal anesthesia in elderly patients undergoing lower extremity surgery. A total of 120 elderly patients undergoing lower extremity surgery were randomly assigned to either receive single-plane (Group A) or dual-plane ultrasonic scan-assisted spinal anesthesia (Group B). The primary outcome analyzed by this study was first-attempt success rate. Secondary outcomes analyzed included number of needle insertion attempts, needle redirections, locating time, procedural time, total time, puncture depth, quality of ultrasound images, level of block, adverse reactions, and complications. The first-attempt success rate was significantly higher in Group B compared to Group A (88.3% vs. 68.3%, p = 0.008). In comparison with Group A, the number of needle insertion attempts (1 (1−2) vs. 1 (1−1), p = 0.005) and needle redirections (2 (1−3) vs. 1 (0−2), p < 0.001) were both significantly lower in Group B; Group B also had a shorter procedural time (249.2 ± 30.1 vs. 380.4 ± 39.4 s, p < 0.001) but a longer locating time (250.1 ± 26.2 vs. 137.8 ± 13.5 s, p < 0.001). The dual-plane ultrasonic scan-assisted spinal anesthesia technique warrants consideration for application in elderly patients.
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.