ArticleCureus2024
Comparative Analysis of Intrathecal Bupivacaine With Fentanyl Versus Intrathecal Bupivacaine With Midazolam in Lower Abdominal and Lower Limb Surgeries.
Article in Cureus, 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
Many different adjuvants are added intrathecally along with local anaesthetics to prolong intraoperative and postoperative analgesia. Hence, this study aimed to compare intrathecal bupivacaine with fentanyl and bupivacaine with midazolam in lower abdominal and lower limb surgeries. Following permission from the Hospital Ethical Committee (Research Protocol No.: IESC/PGS/2022/143), the study was conducted on a sample of 60 patients, divided into two groups, Group F and Group M, with 30 patients each, representing the American Society of Anaesthesiologist's (ASA) grades I and II. The patients were between the ages of 18 and 60 and featured both males and females, scheduled to undergo elective surgical procedures on the lower abdomen and lower limbs via spinal anaesthesia. Group "F": 3 ml of 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine hydrochloride with 0.5 ml (25 mcg) of fentanyl (preservative-free) intrathecally. Group "M": 3 ml of 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine hydrochloride with 0.5 ml (2.5 mg) of midazolam (preservative-free) intrathecally. The primary aim was to study the onset of motor and sensory block and duration of analgesia with the addition of midazolam or fentanyl to 0.5% heavy bupivacaine in the sub-arachnoid block. A secondary aim was to evaluate the quality of anaesthesia and postoperative analgesia, determine the haemodynamic stability in the intraoperative and postoperative period in the two study groups, and observe any adverse effects of study drugs. Group F exhibited a substantially longer duration for both sensory (211.5 vs. 154.4 min) and motor blockade (269.8 vs. 214.6 min) compared to Group M, as well as a rapid onset time for both sensory (2.6 vs. 3.3 min) and motor blockade (3.1 vs. 3.9 min). Also, Group F had a significantly longer duration of effective analgesia compared to Group M (266 ± 15.9 vs. 197.6 ± 13.7 minutes). The addition of 0.5 ml (2.5 mg) Midazolam with 0.5% hyperbaric Bupivacaine intrathecally prolonged the duration of anaesthesia and postoperative analgesia; however, fentanyl 0.5 ml (25 mcg) has a more prolonged duration of intraoperative and postoperative analgesia.
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.