Trial reportBrazilian journal of anesthesiology (Elsevier)
Effectiveness and safety of ultra-low-dose spinal anesthesia versus perineal blocks in hemorroidectomy and anal fistula surgery: a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Brazilian journal of anesthesiology (Elsevier). 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Intravenous sedation combined with local anesthesia versus spinal anesthesia for hemorrhoidectomy with rubber band ligation: A retrospective cohort study.International journal of colorectal disease · 2026Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUltra-low-dose Spinal Anesthesia (SA) is the practice of employing minimal doses of intrathecal agents so that only the roots that supply a specific area are anesthetized. The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness and safety of ultra-low-dose spinal anesthesia with that of Perineal Blocks (PB).
methodsA two-arm, parallel, double-blind randomized controlled trial comparing two anesthetic techniques (SA and PB) for hemorrhoidectomy and anal fistula surgery was performed. The primary outcomes were postoperative pain, complementation and/or conversion of anesthesia, and hemodynamic changes.
resultsFifty-nine patients were included in the final analysis. The mean pain values were similar in the first 48 h in both groups (p > 0.05). The individuals allocated to the SA group did not need anesthetic complementation; however, those in the PB group required it considerably (SA group, 0% vs. PB group, 25%; p = 0.005). Hemodynamic changes were more pronounced after PB: during all surgical times, the PB group showed lower MAP values and higher HR values (p < 0.05). Postoperative urinary retention rates were similar between both groups (SA group 0% vs. PB group 3.1%, p = 0.354).
conclusionSA and PB are similarly effective in pain control during the first 48 h after hemorrhoidectomy and anal fistula surgery. Although surgical time was shorter among patients in the PB group, the SA technique may be preferable as it avoids the need for additional anesthesia. Furthermore, the group that received perineal blocks was under sedation with a considerable dose of propofol.
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.