ArticleAmerican journal of translational research2025
Comparison of the effects of two regional anesthetic techniques on pain during high risk hip fracture surgery.
Article in American journal of translational research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesIn this study, we evaluated perioperative pain management using the Analgesia Nociception Index (ANI) monitoring in high-risk ASA III-IV patients scheduled for hip surgery. Specifically, we examined the lumbar plexus (LP), sacral plexus (SP), and supra-inguinal fascia iliaca compartment blocks (SIFIB), as well as combinations of SP blocks.
methodsIn this prospective observational study, we included 74 patients who were assigned to one of two groups: Group L, which received LP and SP blocks, and Group F, which received SIFIB and SP blocks. Surgery was performed after confirming the sensory block with the pinprick test and applying the sedation protocol. Sedation levels were evaluated using the BIS monitor whereas analgesic requirements were assessed using the ANI monitor. Demographic data, including age, sex, ASA score, SpO
resultsCompared to Group F, Group L presented significantly greater ANI values at 30, 60, 90 min intraoperatively, as well as at 6 and 12 h postoperatively. The VAS scores were consistently higher in Group F than in Group L at all measurement times.
conclusionGroup L provided better analgesia, required fewer sedatives during surgery, and had greater satisfaction among patients and surgeons. A negative correlation was found between the VAS score and ANI for assessing patient pain.
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.