ArticleHeliyon2023
Laryngeal mask general anaesthesia versus spinal anaesthesia for promoting early recovery of cervical conisation: A randomised, controlled clinical study.
Article in Heliyon, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- The impact of spinal versus general anesthesia on the variability of surgical times: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie · 2025Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Although both spinal and general anaesthesia provides good anaesthesia for cervical conization, spinal anaesthesia delays the return of lower limb movements and urinary function, whereas general anaesthesia requires the patient to be unconscious. It is unclear which anaesthetic technique is more conducive to early postoperative recovery in patients undergoing cervical conization. Patients and methods: 140 patients undergoing cervical conization underwent either laryngeal mask general anaesthesia (LMA, n = 70) or spinal anaesthesia (SA, n = 70). In the LMA group, an i-gel mask was used for airway management. In the SA group, spinal anaesthesia was received with 0.75% ropivacaine (15 mg) in the L3-4 interval. The quality of recovery score (QoR-15) was the primary endpoint of the study. Secondary endpoints included incidence of adverse 24-h analgesia (NRS>3); return of lower limb activity; first bed activity and feeding; and the number of catheters removed at 6, 12 and 24 h postoperatively. Result: The LMA group significantly improved QoR-15 scores (136.62 ± 11.02 vs 119.97 ± 12.75; P < 0.001); and reduced the incidence of poor analgesia (NRS >3) within 24 h postoperatively (20% vs 42.8%, P = 0.006); reduced time in bed (15.62 ± 3.83 h vs 18.27 ± 5.57 vs, P = 0.001); improved patient satisfaction (86% vs 27%; P < 0.001); and catheters removal within 24 h (70/70 vs 42/70, P < 0.001). Conclusion: LMA general anaesthesia can facilitate early postoperative recovery in patients undergoing cervical conization compared with conventional spinal anaesthesia. Trial registration: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ID: ChiCTR1800019384), http://www.chictr.org.cn/listbycreater.aspx (08/11/2018).
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.