ArticleFrontiers in surgery2023
Paravertebral block vs. epidural block for percutaneous nephrolithotomy: A prospective, randomized study.
Article in Frontiers in surgery, 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.
- Ultrasound-guided edge of laminar block is an alternative to paravertebral block.Saudi journal of anaesthesiaArticle
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: Percutaneous nephrolithotripsy (PCNL) is the main method for urinary calculi. An anesthesia method with little effect on the blood circulation and which does not affect the postoperative activity of a patient is lacking. Objective: To compare the effects of paravertebral nerve block (PNB) and epidural block (EPB) on quadriceps femoris muscle (QFM) strength in patients after PCNL. Methods: 163 patients were separated into two groups: EPB (81) and PNB (82). Primary outcome parameters were QFM strength and range of motion (RoM) of the knee 1 h, 2 h, 3 h, and 24 h after anesthesia induction (AI). Secondary outcome parameters were: time from AI beginning to first ambulation; time of sensory-plane recovery; amount of additional analgesics given during and after surgery; prevalence of nausea and vomiting; duration of hospital stay (DoHS); mean arterial pressure (MAP), heart rate (HR), and oxygen saturation (SpO Results: There was no significant difference in QFM strength or knee RoM before or 24 h after AI between the two groups ( Conclusions: For patients undergoing PCNL, PNB can meet the need for surgical analgesia while having little effect on QFM strength. Trial registration: http://www.chictr.org.cn/, identifier ChiCTR2200060606.
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.