ArticleSaudi journal of anaesthesia
Retrograde intrarenal surgery with central neuraxial blockade versus general anesthesia: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Saudi journal of anaesthesia. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 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
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The aim of the article is to assess the impact of retrograde intrarenal surgery under central neuraxial blockade in comparison to general anesthesia (GA). Material and Methodology: This systematic review was conducted following the guidelines set out by the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses. We conducted a comprehensive search across major electronic databases, including various types of studies such as descriptive studies and full-text literature, all of which were incorporated into the current review from 2018 to 2023. We involved those studies, which included the comparative study of spinal anesthesia (SA), epidural anesthesia (EA), and combined spinal epidural anesthesia with GA. Result: In our meta-analysis of 12 studies, it was found that anesthesia technique significantly affected operation time, with neuraxial anesthesia (NA) showing a mean difference of -2.28 (95% confidence interval (CI): -3.5 to -1.04, Conclusion: On the basis of the outcomes of study, NA can serve as a viable alternative to GA for RIRS. Our analysis reveals no significant differences in rates of stone clearance, operation duration, 24-h pain scores, complication rates, and length of hospital stay between NA in addition to GA in the context of RIRS. This suggests that given the potential economic advantages, NA might be a preferable choice over GA, contingent on patient preferences, baseline characteristics, and stone burden.
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.