Trial reportRegional anesthesia and pain medicine2026
Anesthetic approaches and 2-year recurrence rates in non-muscle invasive bladder cancer: a randomized clinical trial.
Trial report in Regional anesthesia and pain medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03597087 (The Difference of Two Year Recurrence Rate According to Anesthetic Method During Transurethral Resection of Bladder Mass in Patients With Non-muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 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.
The Difference of Two Year Recurrence Rate According to Anesthetic Method During Transurethral Resection of Bladder Mass in Patients With Non-muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer: Prospective, Randomized, Clinical Phase II Study
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Perioperative cognitive dysfunction in bladder cancer patients, causal factors, and possible interventions.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- Circadian Rhythm Genes-based Prognostic Signature for Bladder Cancer: Association of EZH2 Expression with Anesthetic-related Changes in Circulating Tumor Cells.Current medicinal chemistry · 2026Article
- Article
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
backgroundThe effect of anesthesia methods on non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) recurrence post-resection remains uncertain. We aimed to compare the oncological outcomes of spinal anesthesia (SA) and general anesthesia (GA) in patients with NMIBC.
methodsThis prospective randomized controlled trial recruited 287 patients with clinical NMIBC at Seoul National University Hospital from 2018 to 2020. The patients underwent transurethral resection of the bladder tumor within 4 weeks of randomization. Intrathecal hyperbaric bupivacaine (0.5%) and a mixture of propofol (1-2 mg/kg) and fentanyl (50-100 μg/kg) were used as induction agents in the SA and GA groups, respectively, with desflurane or sevoflurane used for maintaining anesthesia. The primary and secondary outcome measures were disease recurrence and disease progression, respectively, at 2 years after resection. Cumulative incidence of outcomes was compared between the two groups using time-to-event analyses.
results15 patients required alternative anesthesia owing to clinical needs such as SA failure or significant obturator reflex, resulting in a modified intention-to-treat (ITT) population of 272 patients. Time-to-event analysis showed a significantly lower recurrence of NMIBC in the SA group than in the GA group, in both ITT (27.4% vs 39.8%) and modified ITT populations (26.8% vs 39.6%). Disease progression occurred more frequently in the GA than in the SA group (15.2% vs 7.8%), although the difference was not statistically significant.
conclusionsA notable reduction in the 2-year recurrence rate was observed in patients who underwent SA than in those who underwent GA. Thus, SA may be considered the preferred anesthetic approach. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03597087.
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.