ArticleBMC women's health2025
Comparative analysis of spinal anesthesia versus general anesthesia in single-port access laparoscopic adnexal surgery: a propensity score matching study.
Article in BMC women's health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparing the Quality of Patient Recovery After Open Appendectomy Under General Versus Spinal Anesthesia: Prospective Cohort Study.JMIR perioperative medicine · 2026Article
- Bilateral Salpingectomy for Sterilization: A Prospective Comparison of Laparoscopy and vNOTES.JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic SurgeonsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study evaluated the safety and efficacy of spinal anesthesia as an alternative to general anesthesia in single-port access (SPA) laparoscopic adnexal surgeries. 110 patients were recruited and, after propensity score matching, 63 (general anesthesia: 42, spinal anesthesia: 21) were analyzed. During surgery, the Trendelenburg position was limited to 15°, and CO2 pressure maintained at 8-12 mmHg. Postoperative pain and nausea/vomiting scores were assessed up to 48 h post-surgery. No significant differences in patient characteristics were noted between groups. Immediately postoperative, the spinal anesthesia group showed significantly lower pain scores (4.74 ± 1.48 in spinal anesthesia vs. 0.67 ± 0.66 in general anesthesia; p <.001) and nausea/vomiting scores (p =.027). Intraoperative hypotension occurred in both groups (28.6% in spinal anesthesia vs. 33.3% in general anesthesia; p =.774) and was managed with ephedrine. No other intraoperative or postoperative complications were noted. Conclusively, spinal anesthesia is a viable and safe option for SPA laparoscopic salpingo-oophorectomy, effectively reducing immediate postoperative pain and nausea/vomiting.
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.