ArticleAnesthesiology research and practice2023
Assessment of the Safety and Efficiency of a Preperitoneal Continuous Infusion Using Bupivacaine after Abdominal Laparotomy in Digestive Carcinology.
Article in Anesthesiology research and practice, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07271979 (Liposomal Bupivacaine Versus Ropivacaine for Preperitoneal Infiltration Analgesia in Upper Abdominal Laparotomy), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
Liposomal Bupivacaine Versus Ropivacaine for Preperitoneal Infiltration Analgesia in Upper Abdominal Laparotomy: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the safety and efficacy of continuous preperitoneal wound infiltration using bupivacaine after abdominal laparotomy in relation to plasma bupivacaine concentration and visual analog scale. Our study was performed on 60 adult patients with digestive cancer, operated at laparotomy, and randomized into two groups: bupivacaine and saline groups. The wound infiltration was through a multiperforated catheter along the scar. For the bupivacaine group, 0.25% bupivacaine was used; however, for the saline group, only saline (0.9%) was infiltrated. The pain was assessed by using the visual analog scale (VAS) in both groups. Plasma bupivacaine concentration was measured by high-performance liquid chromatography. The bupivacaine group had significantly lower postoperative morphine consumption and lower postoperative pain than the saline group (
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.