ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2022
Sufentanil vs. Dexmedetomidine as Neuraxial Adjuvants in Cesarean Section: A Mono-Centric Retrospective Comparative Study.
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 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploring the effect of fluid management guided by optic nerve sheath diameter on postoperative headache in women with cesarean section.Scientific reports · 2025Trial
- Anesthetic Management of the Pregnant Patient Undergoing Non-Obstetric Surgery.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Review
- Review
- Trends in surgery and anesthesia practices during the COVID-19 pandemic: a nationwide analysis from South Korea's Health Insurance Database.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Analysis of the risk difference in post-spinal anesthesia hypotension between primiparas and multiparas in cesarean section.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Article
- Dexamethasone versus Dexmedetomidine as Adjuvants in Ultrasound Popliteal Sciatic Nerve Block for Hallux Valgus Surgery: A Mono-Centric Retrospective Comparative Study.Drug design, development and therapy · 2024Article
- Impact of Ultrasound-Assisted Method on Success Rate of Spinal Anesthesia Performed by Novice Trainees: A Retrospective Comparative Study.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Spinal anesthesia is the best choice for caesarean delivery. This technique is characterized by a complete and predictable nerve block with a fast onset and few complications. Several intrathecal adjuvants are used in order to improve the quality and duration of anesthesia and reduce its side effects. Sixty-two patients who underwent caesarean delivery under spinal anesthesia were included in this medical records review. In this retrospective study, after adopting exclusion criteria, we assessed 24 patients who received Hyperbaric Bupivacaine 0.5% 10 mg and dexmedetomidine 10 μg (G1), and 28 patients who received an institutional standard treatment with Hyperbaric Bupivacaine 0.5% 10 mg and sufentanil 5 μg (G2). We evaluated the difference in terms of motor and sensory block, postoperative pain, and adverse effects during the first 24 h following delivery and neonatal outcome. Our study found that the sufentanil group had a significantly lower requirement for analgesia than the dexmedetomidine group. Postoperative pain, assessed with the VAS scale, was stronger in G1 than in G2 (4 ± 2 vs. 2 ± 1, p-value < 0.01). Differences between the two groups regarding the intraoperative degree of motor and sensory block, motor recovery time, and neonatal Apgar scores were not noticed. Pruritus and shivering were observed only in G2. Itching and shivering did not occur in the dexmedetomidine group. Postoperative analgesia was superior in the sufentanil group, but the incidence of side effects was higher. Adjuvant dexmedetomidine prevented postoperative shivering.
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.