Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39507679›Full record

ReviewHealth science reports2024

Does preprocedural ultrasound prior to lumbar neuraxial anesthesia or analgesia increase first-pass success in adults with obesity? A systematic review.

Aaron K Khoo, Annie Huynh, Anita Pelecanos, Victoria A Eley

Registry-linked trialAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Health science reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07549776 (Ultrasound-guided Versus Landmark-based Spinal Anesthesia in Obese Parturients Undergoing Cesarean Section), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT07549776 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

Ultrasound-guided Versus Landmark-based Spinal Anesthesia in Obese Parturients Undergoing Cesarean Section: a Prospective Comparative Study

TypeinterventionalSponsorInstituto Nacional Materno Perinatal, PeruRan2025 to 2026Enrolled100ConditionsObesity, Cesarean SectionArmsUltrasound-guided preprocedural marking, Landmark-based palpation
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Aaron K KhooSchool of Medicine Western Sydney University Sydney New South Wales Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-1838-9977
Annie HuynhSchool of Medicine Western Sydney University Sydney New South Wales Australia.
Anita PelecanosQIMR Berghofer Brisbane Queensland Australia.
Victoria A EleyDepartment of Anaesthesia and Perioperative Medicine Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital Brisbane Queensland Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-6715-9193

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and Aims: Preprocedural ultrasound (PPU) reduces the risk of technical failure in non-obese patients and when technical difficulty is predicted. We conducted this review to determine if PPU improves first-pass needle insertion success for neuraxial anesthesia in patients with obesity. Methods: We conducted a systematic review without meta-analysis, due to the small number of included studies. The study protocol was registered (PROSPERO: CRD42022368271). We conducted searches in MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane Library from January 1, 1980 to October 1, 2022 for peer-reviewed randomized controlled or observational studies comparing PPU versus landmark techniques in patients with body mass index >30 kg/m Results: There were nine randomized controlled studies, comprising 866 patients having lumbo-sacral neuraxial techniques. Three studies utilized a small handheld ultrasound device called Accuro™ and six utilized non-handheld ultrasound devices. Certainty of evidence was low for improving the first-pass success rate. There was evidence (moderate certainty) that PPU decreased number of passes, increased first insertion attempt success, and reduced number of insertion attempts. There was no evidence that PPU affected identifying time, needling time, or overall procedural time. There was no evidence that PPU influenced procedural failure rate (very low certainty evidence) and insufficient evidence to suggest that artificial intelligence-supported handheld devices were superior to conventional ultrasound devices. Conclusions: In patients with obesity, there is evidence of very-low to moderate certainty that PPU improves markers of insertion success, with no indication of increased adverse effects. PPU should be used to reduce attempts. Further studies adhering to standardized outcome definitions are required for definitive recommendations. Registration: The study protocol was registered on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO: CRD42022368271).

Indexed as

body mass indexneuraxialobesitypalpationpreproceduralspinalultrasound

Identifiers

PMID39507679
PMCPMC11539018

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

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.