Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36792639›Full record

Trial reportScientific reports2023

Comparison of the efficacy of 0.5% isobaric bupivacaine, 0.5% levobupivacaine, and 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine for spinal anesthesia in lower limb surgeries.

Valery Piacherski, Lidziya Muzyka

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05184465 (Comparison of the Efficacy of 0.5% Bupivacaine, 0.5% Levobupivacaine, and 0.5% Hyperbaric Bupivacaine in Equal Volumes for Spinal Anesthesia in Lower Limb Surgeries), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT05184465 nacompletednot on this map

Comparison of the Efficacy of 0.5% Bupivacaine, 0.5% Levobupivacaine, and 0.5% Hyperbaric Bupivacaine in Equal Volumes for Spinal Anesthesia in Lower Limb Surgeries

TypeinterventionalSponsorMogilev Regional Clinical HospitalRan2017 to 2022Enrolled111ConditionsAnesthesia, SpinalArmsspinal anesthesia
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Valery PiacherskiDepartment of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, Mogilev Regional Clinical Hospital, A. Kuleshov Str., 3-36, 212026, Mogilev, Belarus. pechersky.v@yandex.ru.
Lidziya MuzykaDepartment of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, Mogilev Regional Clinical Hospital, A. Kuleshov Str., 3-36, 212026, Mogilev, Belarus.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Various advantages of isobaric bupivacaine, levobupivacaine, and hyperbaric bupivacaine are described. There are no studies reliably determining the benefits of these forms of bupivacaine. The purpose of the study was to compare the efficacy of spinal anesthesia (SA) performed with 0.5% isobaric bupivacaine, 0.5% levobupivacaine, and 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine. The clinical study was approved by the ethics committee. The sample size was calculated for a confidence level of 99%. 111 patients were randomly allocated into 3 equal groups for spinal anesthesia in lower limb surgeries. In group 1 (1B) spinal anesthesia was performed with 3 ml of 0.5% isobaric bupivacaine (n = 37); in group 2 (2L)-3 ml of 0.5% levobupivacaine (n = 37), in group 3 (3H)-3 ml of 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine (n = 37). The criterion for assessing the effectiveness of anesthesia was the need to switch to another type of anesthesia (criterion-no anesthesia), or the need for additional use of narcotic analgesics or local anesthesia during surgery (criterion-reporting of painful feelings during the operation). In 1B anesthesia efficiency by the criterion of additional intraoperative analgesia was 100% (37 patients; 95% CI [0.88-1.0]); 2L-86.4%; (31 patients; 95% CI [0.68-0.92]); 3H-72.9% (27 patients; 95% CI [0.56-0.84]). There were significant differences between groups 1B and 2L: p < 0.05 (p = 0.0104). There were no significant differences between groups 2L and 3H (p = 0.2587). All patients in group 1B developed complete sensory block (++) within 4 (3; 5) min. In group 2L complete sensory block developed in 34 patients (89.4%) within 9 (5; 14) min, in group 3H sensory block developed in all patients within 3 (2.5; 4). The duration of analgesia period between 1B and 2L did not statistically differ (p = 0.73). In 3H the duration of analgesia was 170 (150; 200) min. The study found 83.7% efficacy of levobupivacaine and 72.9% efficacy of hyperbaric bupivacaine in comparison with isobaric bupivacaine (100%) when administered intrathecally in equal volumes and amounts (by the criterion of additional intraoperative analgesia).Trial registration: NCT05184465 (Initial Release: 12/01/2021; date of first publication-11/01/2022).

Indexed as

Anesthesia, SpinalBupivacaineAnesthesia, LocalAnesthetics, LocalHumansLevobupivacaineLower ExtremityPainAnesthetics, LocalBupivacaineLevobupivacaine

Identifiers

PMID36792639
PMCPMC9932064

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.