Trial reportBMC anesthesiology2023
The Minimum Effective Concentration (MEC95) of different volumes of ropivacaine for ultrasound-guided caudal epidural block: a dose-finding study.
Trial report in BMC anesthesiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Determining the optimal ropivacaine concentration for spinal anaesthesia during day surgery for anorectal procedures: a dose-finding study.Scientific reports · 2025Trial
- A randomized double-blinded study assessing the effect of different doses of transnasal dexmedetomidine on the median effective concentration of ropivacaine for a caudal block.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCaudal epidural block (CEB) may be beneficial in anorectal surgery because its use may extend postoperative analgesia. This dose-finding study aimed to estimate the minimum effective anesthetic concentrations for 95% patients(MEC95) of 20 ml or 25 ml of ropivacaine in with CEB. PATIENTS AND
methodsIn this double-blind, prospective study, the concentration of ropivacaine administered in 20 ml and 25 ml for ultrasound-guided CEB were determined using the sample up-and-down sequential allocation study design of binary response variables. The first participant was given 0.5% ropivacaine. Depending on whether a block was successful or unsuccessful, the concentration of local anesthesia was decreased or increased by 0.025% in the next patient. Every five minutes for 30 min, the sensory blockade using a pin-prick sensation at S3 dermatome compared to at T6 dermatome were evaluated every 5 min within 30 min. An effective CEB was defined as a a reduction of sensation at S3 dermatome and the existence of flaccid anal sphincter. Anesthesia was considered successful if the surgeon could perform the surgery without additional anesthesia. We determined the MEC50 using the Dixon and Massey up-and-down method and estimated the MEC95 using probit regression.
resultsThe concentration of ropivacaine administered in 20 ml for CEB ranged from 0.2% to 0.5%. Probit regression with a bias-corrected Morris 95% CI derived by bootstrapping showed an MEC50 and MEC 50 of ropivacaine for anorectal surgical anesthesia were 0.27% (95% CI, 0.24 to 0.31) and 0.36%(95% CI, 0.32 to 0.61). The concentration of ropivacaine administered in 25 ml for CEB ranged from 0.175 to 0.5. Probit regression with a bias-corrected Morris 95% CI derived by bootstrapping showed an MEC50 and MEC95 for CEB were 0.24% (95% CI, 0.19 to 0.27) and 0.32% (95% CI, 0.28 to 0.54).
conclusionWith ultrasound-guided CEB, the MEC95 of 0.36% ropivacaine at 20 ml and 0.32% ropivacaine at 25 ml provide adequate surgical anesthesia/analgesia 95% of patients undergoing anorectoal surgery.
trial registrationClinicaltrails.gov: Retrospectively registered (ChiCTR2100042954; Registration date:1/2, 2021).
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.