ArticleBritish journal of anaesthesia2024
Feasibility of ultrasound-guided nerve blocks in simulated microgravity: a proof-of-concept study for regional anaesthesia during deep space missions.
Article in British journal of anaesthesia, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Deep Learning-Based Tracking of Neurovascular Features Toward Semi-Automated Ultrasound-Guided Peripheral Nerve Blocks by Non-Specialists.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Physiologic changes in microgravity may lead to unpredictable effects of spinal anesthesia.Frontiers in physiology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWith crewed deep space exploration on the horizon, preparation for potential astronaut health crises in space missions has become vital. Administration of anaesthesia and analgesia presents many challenges owing to constraints specific to space (physiologic and ergonomic challenges associated with microgravity) and nonspecific factors (isolation and lack of supplies). Regional anaesthesia can be the safest option; however, we hypothesised that the ergonomics of microgravity would compromise ease and accuracy of nerve blocks.
methodsWe evaluated the feasibility of regional anaesthesia in a simulated microgravity environment (free-floating underwater conditions) using a meat (bovine muscle) model. Forty meat models were randomised for injection under simulated microgravity or normal gravity conditions. Success rates were determined by blinded assessors after injection. Parameters assessed included time to block, ease of image acquisition, and ease of needle placement.
resultsThe median time to block in normal gravity was 27 (interquartile range 21-69) s vs 35 (interquartile range 22-48) s in simulated microgravity (P=0.751). Ease of image acquisition was similar in both conditions, as was ease of needle placement. There was no significant difference in the rate of accidental intraneural injections (5% vs 5%), with block success rates comparable in both scenarios (80% normal gravity vs 85% microgravity, P>0.999).
conclusionsRegional anaesthesia appears feasible for experts in simulated microgravity despite the ergonomic challenges. Although our model has limitations and might not fully capture the complexities of actual space conditions, it provides a foundation for future research into anaesthesia and analgesia during deep space missions.
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.