Trial reportBMC anesthesiology2025
Ultrasound-assisted technique versus the conventional landmark location method in spinal anesthesia for cesarean delivery in parturients with class 3 obesity: a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in BMC anesthesiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05342922 (Comparison of Ultrasound and Anatomical Land-mark Method in Spinal Anesthesia for Elective Cesarean Section in Obese Parturients With BMI ≥ 40 kg/m2. A Randomized Controlled Trial), which is not on this 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.
Comparison of Ultrasound and Anatomical Land-mark Method in Spinal Anesthesia for Elective Cesarean Section in Obese Parturients With BMI ≥ 40 kg/m2. A Randomized Controlled Trial
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSpinal anesthesia with the conventional landmark technique can be challenging in parturients with morbid obesity. In the present study, the researchers examined the effects of ultrasound-assisted pre-puncture anesthesia in parturients with morbid obesity with difficult topographic anatomy on the success of the first injection attempt. It was hypothesized that the pre-procedural ultrasonographic examination would increase the successful first attempt rate compared with manual palpation.
methodA total of 80 parturients with class 3 obesity (WHO classification), BMI ≥ 40 kg/m2, ASA physical status classification 3 and 18-to 45 years old scheduled for elective cesarean section with spinal anesthesia were included in the study. Localization techniques were randomized into conventional landmark technique (group L, n = 40) and pre-puncture ultrasound(USG) assisted technique (group U, n = 40). The ultrasound technique utilized both longitudinal parasagittal and transverse midline views, employing a convex probe. The injection site was marked, and spinal injection was performed with the patient in the lateral decubitus position. The primary outcome was the single-shot successful dura-subarachnoid membrane puncture rate. Secondary outcomes were skin puncture, number of needle passes, location marking and procedure times, patient satisfaction scores, and incidence of complications.
resultsThe single-shot dura-subarachnoid puncture success rate was significantly higher in group U (10% vs. 42.5%; p = 0.002). No parturients required > 10 needle passes that was described difficult spinal anesthesia in group U (p = 0.0026), and there were fewer skin puncture attempts and needle passes than in group L (p < 0.05). Although the pre-procedural evaluation (p < 0.001) and total time (p = 0.017) were longer in group U compared with group L, the spinal injection time (p < 0.001) was shorter.
conclusionsIn the lateral position, ultrasound used to determine the needle insertion point provided a high first-attempt dura-subarachnoid success rate and reduced needle passages (skin puncture + needle redirections) and puncture attempts in parturients with class 3 obesity who underwent spinal anesthesia.
trial registrationThe study was registered prospectively at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT05342922) in 2022-04-18.
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.