ArticleTurkish journal of anaesthesiology and reanimation2023
Caesarean Section for Placenta Previa: A Retrospective Cohort Study of Anaesthesia Techniques.
Article in Turkish journal of anaesthesiology and reanimation, 2023. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivePlacenta previa is associated with maternal and neonatal morbidity and mortality. This study aims to add to the limited literature from the developing world on the association of different anaesthetic techniques with blood loss, the need for blood transfusion, and maternal/ neonatal outcomes among women undergoing caesarean section with placenta previa.
methodsThis retrospective study was conducted at Aga University Hospital, Karachi, Pakistan. The patient population included parturients undergoing caesarean section for placenta previa from January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2019.
resultsOut of 276 consecutive cases of placenta previa progressing to caesarean section during the study period, 36.24% were performed under regional anaesthesia and 63.76% under general anaesthesia. When compared to general anaesthesia, significantly less regional anaesthesia was used for emergency caesarean section (26% vs. 38.6%, P = .033) and for grade IV placenta previa (50% vs. 68.8%, P = .013). Blood loss was found to be significantly low with regional anaesthesia (P = .005) and posterior placenta (P = .042), while it was found to be high in grade IV placenta previa (P = .024). The odds of requiring blood transfusion were low in regional anaesthesia (odds ratio = 0.122; 95% CI = 0.041-0.36, P = .0005) and posterior placenta (odds ratio = 0.402; 95% CI = 0.201-0.804, P = .010), while they were high in grade IV placenta previa (odds ratio: 4.13; 95% CI = 0.90-19.80, P = .0681). The rate of neonatal deaths and intensive care admission was significantly lower in regional anaesthesia than in general anaesthesia (7% vs. 3% and 9% vs. 3%). The maternal mortality was zero; however, intensive care admission was less in regional anaesthesia compared to general anaesthesia (<1% vs. 4%).
conclusionOur data demonstrated less blood loss, need for blood transfusion, and better maternal and neonatal outcomes with regional anaesthesia for caesarean section in women with placenta previa.
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.