ArticleIndian journal of anaesthesia2024
Comparison of block characteristics and outcomes in opioid-free and opioid-based thoracic continuous spinal anaesthesia in patients undergoing major abdominal surgery: A double-blinded randomised controlled trial.
Article in Indian journal of anaesthesia, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy of fentanyl combined with bupivacaine and morphine for spinal anesthesia during cesarean section: A double-blind randomized controlled trial.The Journal of international medical research · 2025Trial
- Hypothesis reporting in randomised controlled trials: A critical appraisal of IJA 2024 publications.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2025Article
- Indications and Technique for Thoracic Segmental Spinal Anesthesia in Clinical Practice: A Narrative Review.Cureus · 2025Review
- Post-publication appraisal of randomisation reporting in IJA - Are we hitting the bull's eye?Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2024Article
- Thoracic spinal anaesthesia - An effective alternative to general anaesthesia in breast surgeries: A randomised, non-blinded study.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2024Article
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
Background and Aims: Thoracic continuous spinal anaesthesia (TCSA) is emerging as the sole anaesthetic for major abdominal surgery due to its better perioperative outcomes. This study was designed to evaluate block characteristics and outcomes in 'opioid-free' and 'opioid-based' TCSA. Methods: After ethical approval, trial registration and written informed consent, 50 adult patients undergoing major abdominal surgery were randomised into 'opioid-free' (bupivacaine alone) and 'opioid-based' (bupivacaine with fentanyl) groups. After confirmation of T4-L1 dermatome level of spinal anaesthesia, sedation by intravenous (IV) midazolam (0.02-0.05 mg/kg), ketamine (0.25 mg/kg) and dexmedetomidine (bolus dose of 1 µg/kg IV over 10 min followed by 0.2-0.7 µg/kg/h infusion) were started. The primary outcome measured was postoperative pain scores for 72 h in both groups. The secondary objectives were rescue opioid requirement, and the dose of bupivacaine required to achieve T4 level. Data were compared using the two-sided Student Results: The 'opioid-based' group performed significantly better compared with the 'opioid-free' group concerning pain scores at rest at 0 h ( Conclusion: The 'opioid-based' TCSA provided better postoperative analgesia with significantly lesser postoperative pain scores when compared to the 'opioid-free' group in patients undergoing major abdominal surgery.
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.