ArticleFrontiers in medicine2024
Application of articaine in endoscopic endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy: a retrospective study.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2024. 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.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: To investigate the comparative effects of local anesthesia using lidocaine with adrenaline vs. articaine with adrenaline in endoscopic endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy (EN-DCR). Methods: This retrospective study included a total of 180 patients. These patients were categorized into two groups: the lidocaine group, which received 2% lidocaine (1:100,000 adrenaline), and the articaine group, which received 4% articaine (1:100,000 adrenaline) for local anesthesia. The study compared anesthesia efficacy, intraoperative pain levels, intraoperative bleeding, as well as differences in heart rate and blood pressure between the two groups. Results: The articaine group demonstrated a significantly lower visual analog scale (VAS) pain score when compared to the lidocaine group, measuring at 4.4 ± 0.6 cm vs. 5.0 ± 1.0 cm, respectively ( Conclusion: This study demonstrated that 4% articaine (1:100,000 adrenaline) has superior clinical effectiveness in comparison to 2% lidocaine (1:100,000 adrenaline) in EN-DCR.
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.