ArticleAnesthesia, essays and researches
A Clinical Comparison between Single-Space Technique and Double-Space Technique for Combined Spinal and Epidural Anesthesia.
Article in Anesthesia, essays and researches. 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.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Combined spinal and epidural anesthesia (CSEA) is commonly performed by double space technique (DST) and single space segment technique (SST) or needle-through-needle technique (NNT). Aims and Objectives: We designed a double-blind randomized controlled study to compare the effect of the double-space technique with that of the single-space technique on time required by the procedure, the number of attempts, and a level of sensory, side effects and cost-effectiveness. Materials and Methods: Patients undergoing elective lower abdominal and lower limb surgeries under regional anesthesia were randomized to receive CSEA with either the double-space technique (double group, Results: The single space (needle-through-needle) technique for CSE takes less time, less number of spinal punctures. There was no difference between the two groups in terms of side effects. Sensory level at T10 on 5 min in group I was 90% and group II was 100% whereas at T8 it was 10% in group I; sensory level at T10, T8 and T6 on 10 min. in group I were 53.3%, 43.3% and 3.3% respectively whereas in group II were 80%, 16.7% and 3.3% respectively; sensory level at T10, T8, T6 and T4 on 15 min. in group I were 6.7%, 43.3%, 50% and 0% respectively whereas in group II were 23.3%, 50%, 23.3% and 3.3% respectively; and sensory level at T4, T6 and T8 on 20 min. in group I were 0%, 73.3% and 26.7% respectively whereas in group II were 16.7%, 33.3% and 50% respectively. Conclusions: Single-space (needle-through-needle) CSEA takes less time, less number of spinal punctures and results in improved patient satisfaction. There were no differences in intraoperative variables between the DST and SST for CSEA.
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.