Trial reportTechnology and health care : official journal of the European Society for Engineering and Medicine2024
The significance of different intervertebral spaces in combined spinal epidural anesthesia in cesarean section.
Trial report in Technology and health care : official journal of the European Society for Engineering and 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe number of cesarean sections performed is increasing every year, and obstetric anesthesia is of great interest to physicians and research scholars because of its specificity, high risk, and high complication rate.
objectiveTo investigate the effects of combined spinal epidural anesthesia (CSEA) with different intervertebral spaces during cesarean section on anesthesia effect, anesthesia onset time, anesthesia recovery time, maternal adverse reactions, and neonates.
methodsNinety-two women who underwent cesarean section in our hospital from September 2022 to February 2023 were selected as the study subjects and randomly divided them into two groups (group A and group B), 46 women in each group. Group A underwent CSEA via an L2-3 gap and group B underwent CSEA via an L3-4 gap puncture. The anesthesia effect, anesthesia onset time, sensory recovery time, adverse effects, and neonatal Apgar score were compared between the two groups.
resultsWhen CSEA was performed from L2-3, the anesthesia efficiency was higher, but the difference was not statistically significant. When anesthesia was performed by puncture from L2-3, the onset of anesthesia and recovery time was shorter, and the incidence of intraoperative maternal nausea and vomiting, hypotension, respiratory depression, and other adverse reactions was low with a statistically significant difference. However, the Apgar scores of the neonates in the two groups have no difference.
conclusionsWhen CSEA is induced via L2-3 interspace, anesthesia has a rapid onset of action, shorter recovery time, and few maternal adverse effects, without affecting the final anesthetic outcome.
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.