ArticleCureus2023
A Study of the Clinical Effects of Sequential Combined Spinal Epidural Anesthesia and Spinal Anesthesia in Patients Undergoing Orthopedic Surgeries.
Article in Cureus, 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative evaluation of spinal versus epidural anesthesia in lower limb orthopedic surgery: Hemodynamic stability and block duration.Bioinformation · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn orthopedic surgeries, there has been an increase in the usage of the neuraxial blockade to provide excellent surgical conditions and prolonged postoperative analgesia. The introduction of the sequential combined spinal epidural anesthesia (SCSEA) technique provides benefits for both spinal anesthesia (SA) and epidural anesthesia. The focus of this study was to analyze the time needed to attain a desired level of sensory block, to compare the period of sensory block, and to study the intraoperative hemodynamics in the SCSEA and SA groups. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe study was conducted on patients admitted for elective lower limb orthopedic surgeries. The sample size for this prospective randomized study is two groups of 67 subjects each. Patients aged between 18 and 65 years, posted for orthopedic surgeries for two to three hours, and of American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) Grades 1 and 2 were included and divided into two groups. Group A patients received SCSEA with an epidural-test dose of 3 ml lignocaine (2%) with adrenaline and spinal bupivacaine (0.5%) of 1.5 ml-7.5 mg + fentanyl .25 mic if the sensory level was below T8. An epidural top-up was given with 2 ml per segment of 0.5% bupivacaine to bring the sensory level to T8. Group B patients received SA with spinal bupivacaine (0.5%) of 3 ml-15 mg + fentanyl .25 mic. Intraoperative hemodynamics, the duration to achieve a sensory level of T8, the time for two-segment regression of sensory block, and the complications that occurred were recorded.
resultsThe study included a total of 134 subjects with each group having 67 subjects admitted for lower limb surgery. The mean value (SD) of the time taken to attain sensory block in the SCSEA group was prolonged when compared to the SA group (7.15 ± 0.75 and 5.01 ± 0.88). The time for two-segment regression in the SCSEA group was 86.77 ± 3.60 and the SA group was 106.4 ± 8.01, which indicated that the SA group has a longer and better sensory block. Substantially, the study shows that the SCSEA group (P < 0.05) has better hemodynamics when compared to the SA group.
conclusionThe SCSEA technique has better intraoperative hemodynamic stability with a longer analgesic effect when compared to SA. SA shows a sudden change in hemodynamics but reveals a greater sensory block.
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.