ArticleJournal of pain research2023
Spinal Anaesthesia as an Adjunct to General Anaesthesia for Laparoscopic Abdominoperineal Rectal Amputation.
Article in Journal of pain research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05406765 (Spinal Analgesia for Laparoscopic Abdominoperineal Rectal Amputation Using an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Program), which is not on this 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.
Spinal Analgesia for Laparoscopic Abdominoperineal Rectal Amputation Using an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Program: a Randomized Double-blind Placebo-controlled Trial
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Spinal anaesthesia as an adjunct to general anaesthesia may reduce postoperative pain and opioid consumption after laparoscopic abdominoperineal rectal amputation. We designed a randomized double blinded pilot study with two objectives: 1) to explore potential benefits of spinal anaesthesia as an adjunct to general anaesthesia and 2) to provide power and sample size estimations for potential differences between the groups. Primary outcome measures were postoperative pain and oral morphine equivalent (OMEq) consumption. Methods: Patients scheduled for elective laparoscopic abdominoperineal rectal amputation at the University Hospital of North Norway were randomised to spinal (n=5) or a sham spinal procedure (n=5). Numeric rating scale (NRS) and OMEq were monitored postoperatively for 72 h. Results: Age, sex, body mass index, and ASA were not significantly different between the groups. During surgery, patients in the spinal group received less remifentanil (p=0.06). NRS was lower in the spinal group 1 hr after admittance to the post-anaesthesia care unit (PACU) (p=0.06) and on the first postoperative day at 8 AM (p=0.03). OMEq consumption in the PACU was lower in the spinal group (p=0.008), but no differences between the groups were detected after discharge to the ward. Sample size estimations revealed that eight patients in each group would be needed to study potential NRS differences after admission to the PACU and 23 patients in each group to study potential differences in OMEq consumption on day 1. Conclusion: Spinal anaesthesia as an adjunct to general anaesthesia reduces postoperative pain and opioid consumption after laparoscopic abdominoperineal rectal amputation. Data from the current study should be followed up by a sufficiently powered randomized controlled trial. Clinical Trial Registration: Trial registered at https://clinicaltrials.gov (NCT05406765).
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.