ArticleCureus2024
Failed Spinal Anesthesia: Incidence and Associated Factors.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Contributors to failed spinal anesthesia.The Journal of international medical research · 2026Pooled it
- Beyond incidence: clarifying the evidence-based predictors of failed spinal anesthesia.Patient safety in surgery · 2026Article
- Incidence and predictors of failed spinal anesthesia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Patient safety in surgery · 2025Review
- Exploring Variability in Spinal Anesthesia Levels Achieved During Cesarean Section Deliveries: A Narrative Review.Cureus · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Spinal anesthesia, a commonly used technique for lower abdominal, pelvic, and lower extremity surgeries, involves injecting a local anesthetic into the subarachnoid space to temporarily block sensory, motor, and sympathetic nerves. Despite its high success rate, the failure of spinal anesthesia, which can lead to adverse patient outcomes, remains a concern. The failure rate varies widely, from 1% to 17%, influenced by factors such as technical challenges, patient anatomy, and practitioner experience. This study aims to determine the incidence and causes of spinal anesthesia failure in a university hospital setting. Methodology This cross-sectional, prospective observational study was conducted at Dr. D.Y. Patil Medical College and Research Centre, Pimpri, Pune. Data were collected from patients aged ≥18 years who underwent spinal anesthesia over one year. The study recorded various parameters, including patient demographics, surgical details, and anesthetic techniques. Failed spinal anesthesia was categorized into total failure (no block achieved) and partial failure (need for additional analgesia). Statistical analysis was performed to identify the incidence and contributing factors to spinal anesthesia failure. Results Out of 3933 patients receiving spinal anesthesia, 72 experienced failure, resulting in an incidence rate of 1.83%. The majority of failures were total (87.5%), with partial failures accounting for 12.5%. Among the cases of failed spinal anesthesia, failures were most common in obstetric surgeries (37.5%), followed by orthopedic (25%), general (22.22%), and urologic (15.28%) surgeries. The highest failure rate according to surgery type in all patients receiving spinal anesthesia was seen in orthopedic surgery (3.46%) followed by urologic surgery (2.17%). Elective surgeries had a lower failure rate (1.39%) compared to emergency surgeries (3.87%). Quincke-type needles were predominantly used, and spinal anesthesia was most often administered at the L3-L4 intervertebral space in the sitting position. Notably, first-year residents had the highest failure rate (43.06%), while more experienced practitioners had lower failure rates. Conclusion The incidence of spinal anesthesia failure in our study was 1.83%, with total failures being more common than partial failures. Factors such as surgical type, emergency status, and practitioner experience can impact the failure rate. The higher failure rate among less experienced practitioners underscores the need for improved training and expertise. Regular monitoring and refinement of spinal anesthesia techniques are essential to enhance patient safety and optimize anesthetic care.
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.