Trial reportAnaesthesiology intensive therapy2024
Process optimisation: spinal versus general anaesthesia for endourological surgery. A randomised, controlled trial and machine-learning approach.
Trial report in Anaesthesiology intensive therapy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- From Data to Decisions: Harnessing Multi-Agent Systems for Safer, Smarter, and More Personalized Perioperative Care.Journal of personalized medicine · 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
introductionData concerning anaesthesia for endourology are rare, and options for it are numerous. Thus, identifying the optimal anaesthesia regimen remains challenging. With this study we aimed to provide the means for selecting optimal anaesthesia for endourology procedures. MATERIAL AND
methodsThis was a randomised, open-label, controlled study conducted in a single tertiary hospital. Inclusion criteria: American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status/risk category I-III, and scheduled surgery time < 60 minutes. Exclusion criteria: contraindications or lack of consent for one of the anaesthesia types, intellectual disabilities, pregnancy, breastfeeding, and refusal to participate. The participants were divided into 3 groups: G1, spinal anaesthesia (SPA) with bupivacaine; G2, SPA with prilocaine; G3, total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) with remifentanil and propofol. The primary outcome measure was time to ambulation, while the secondary outcome measures included perioperative hypotension. The results are presented as mean ± SD or median [IQR].
resultsIn total, 117 patients completed the study. The time to ambulation (minutes) was significantly different between all groups: 187.95 ± 49.82, 161.05 ± 46.28, and 129.14 ± 63.75 min, for G1, G2 and G3, respectively. The mean arterial pressure drop from baseline during the procedure was most pronounced in G3 (35% [30-44], P < 0.001) and lowest in G2 (18% [12-27], P < 0.001 vs. G3, NS vs. bupivacaine). Machine-learning models were trained and demonstrated satisfactory performance in predicting the time spent in recovery.
conclusionsIn the context of endourological surgery, the time required for ambulation was shortest when using TIVA, while SPA with hyperbaric prilocaine provides the closest approximation to optimal anaesthesia.
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.