ArticleBMC anesthesiology2025
Comparison of maternal and neonatal outcomes between general anesthesia and combined spinal-epidural anesthesia in cesarean delivery for pregnancy complicated with placenta previa.
Article in BMC anesthesiology, 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.
- Anaesthesia management and perioperative clinical outcomes in caesarean section patients with placental pathology: a retrospective cohort study.BMC anesthesiology · 2025Article
- Short-Term Maternal and Neonatal Outcomes in Preterm (<33 Weeks Gestation) Cesarean Deliveries Under General Anesthesia with Deferred Cord Clamping.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
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
Abstract
backgroundPlacenta previa (PP) involves abnormal placental implantation in the lower uterine segment, partially or completely covering the internal cervical os, and is linked to severe maternal hemorrhage and fetal complications. The optimal anesthetic method between general anesthesia (GA) and combined spinal-epidural anesthesia (CSEA) for cesarean delivery (CD) with PP remains controversial.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed 550 PP-complicated CD cases from the Longitudinal Placenta Previa Study (LoPPS) conducted in Southwest China between January 2018 and December 2024. Patients received either GA (n = 170) or CSEA (n = 380). Sociodemographic, obstetric, perioperative, and neonatal data were compared. Multivariate linear and logistic regression was employed to assess the association between anesthetic methods and other perioperative factors, and intraoperative blood loss, or neonatal asphyxia while adjusting for potential confounders.
resultsPatients undergoing GA had a higher age (32.4 vs 31.5 years, p = 0.020), higher body mass index (BMI) (26.5 vs 23.5 kg/m
conclusionCSEA is a safe option for selected cases of PP-related CD, particularly in the absence of PAS or in cases with milder forms of PP. Though the GA group exhibited greater intraoperative blood loss, due to the significant differences in the indications for anesthesia methods and the observational nature of current study, this should not be simply interpreted as a causative effect of GA on higher intraoperative blood loss. Thorough antenatal ultrasound assessment of placental status is critical. For complex cases, such as those involving severe PAS subtypes or complete PP, coordinated multidisciplinary perioperative management is essential.
trial registrationChiCTR2100052428, October 26
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.