Observational studyAnnals of cardiac anaesthesia2024
Thoracotomy Patients Under General Anesthesia: A Comparison on Intra-Operative Anesthetic and Analgesic Requirements, When Combined with Either Epidural Analgesia or Continuous Unilateral Paravertebral Analgesia.
Observational study in Annals of cardiac anaesthesia, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ultrasound image-based paravertebral nerve block combined with general anesthesia in laparoscopic radical resection of esophageal cancer : Paravertebral nerve block versus general anesthesia in the treatment of esophageal cancer: a randomized controlled trial.World journal of surgical oncology · 2025Trial
- Comparison of different pain management strategies during the perioperative period of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a retrospective cohort study.Perioperative medicine (London, England) · 2025Article
- Our Two Cents Regarding the Study Design and Methodology.Annals of cardiac anaesthesia · 2024Article
- Reply to Letter: Our Two Cents Regarding the Study Design and Methodology.Annals of cardiac 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectiveRegional analgesia is effective for post-thoracotomy pain. The primary objective of the study is to compare the intraoperative requirement of isoflurane and fentanyl between general anaesthesia (GA) with epidural analgesia and GA with paravertebral analgesia. METHODS AND MATERIAL: A prospective observational comparative study was conducted on 56 patients undergoing open thoracotomy procedures. The patients were divided into two groups of 28 by assigning the study participants alternatively to each group: Group GAE - received thoracic epidural catheterization with GA, and Group GAP - received ultrasound guided thoracic paravertebral catheterization on the operative side with GA. Intraoperative requirement of isoflurane, fentanyl, postoperative analgesia, stress response, need of rescue analgesics and adverse effects were observed and analysed.
results25 patients in each group were included in the data analysis. The intraoperative requirement of isoflurane (32.28 ± 1.88 vs 48.31 ± 4.34 ml; p < 0.0001) and fentanyl (128.87 ± 25.12 vs 157 ± 30.92 μg; p = 0.0009) were significantly less in the GAE group than in the GAP group. VAS scores and need of rescue analgesics and blood glucose levels were not statistically significant during the postoperative period (p > 0.05). The incidence of adverse effects was comparable except for hypotension and urinary retention which were significantly higher in the GAE group.
conclusionGA with epidural analgesia resulted in significant reduction in the intraoperative consumption of isoflurane and fentanyl in comparison to GA with paravertebral analgesia. However, both the techniques were equally effective in the postoperative period.
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.