Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40792424›Full record

Trial reportActa anaesthesiologica Scandinavica2025

Spinal Anaesthesia Versus General Anaesthesia for Patients With Tibia Shaft Fractures-A Randomized Controlled Study.

Pasi M Lehto, Merja A Vakkala, Iikka P Lantto, Pasi Ohtonen, Janne H Liisanantti, Timo I Kaakinen

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled TrialComparative Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in Acta anaesthesiologica Scandinavica, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01795287 (Safety of Spinal Anesthesia in Patients With Tibial Shaft Fracture), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT01795287 naunknown statusnot on this map

Safety of Spinal Anesthesia in Patients With Tibial Shaft Fracture: A Single-center Randomized, Controlled Trial.

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of OuluRan2012 to 2020Enrolled50ConditionsTibial FractureArmsGeneral anesthesia, Spinal anesthesia
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Trial
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Pasi M LehtoDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Oulu University Hospital, Oulu, Finland.ORCID 0000-0002-8088-6643
Merja A VakkalaDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Oulu University Hospital, Oulu, Finland.
Iikka P LanttoOulu University Hospital, Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Oulu, Finland.
Pasi OhtonenResearch Group of Anaesthesiology, Medical Research Unit of Translational Medicine, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland.ORCID 0000-0001-8245-3000
Janne H LiisananttiDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Oulu University Hospital, Oulu, Finland.ORCID 0000-0002-5580-3447
Timo I KaakinenResearch Group of Anaesthesiology, Medical Research Unit of Translational Medicine, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland.ORCID 0000-0001-5125-245X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundConcerns about the delayed diagnosis of acute compartment syndrome have led to recommendations favouring general anaesthesia over spinal anaesthesia in surgeries for diaphyseal tibia fractures. However, there is a lack of supporting clinical evidence. This study compared spinal anaesthesia and general anaesthesia in terms of compartment pressures, risk of acute compartment syndrome, and postoperative outcomes in tibia shaft fractures treated with intramedullary nailing.

methodsA randomized controlled study was carried out at a tertiary hospital from 2011 to 2021. Fifty patients with unilateral tibia shaft fractures were randomly assigned to receive either spinal or general anaesthesia. The primary outcome was compartment and delta pressures in the anterior tibial muscle compartment for 24 h after surgery. Secondary outcomes included near-infrared spectroscopy values, pain scores, and opioid consumption.

resultsDelta pressures were higher in the spinal anaesthesia group (estimated average effect over 24 h: 6.4 mmHg [CI 0.2-12.6]; p = 0.042). However, absolute compartment pressures were comparable between groups (effect estimate: -0.9 mmHg [CI -6.7 to 5.0]; p = 0.77). No cases of acute compartment syndrome occurred in the spinal anaesthesia group, while three patients treated with general anaesthesia required fasciotomy. There was no statistical difference in compartment surface oxygenation measured with near-infrared spectroscopy, pain scores, or median total opioid consumption between the study groups during the 24-h postoperative follow-up.

conclusionSpinal anaesthesia was not associated with higher compartment pressures compared to general anaesthesia. These findings suggest that prevailing concerns and recommendations about spinal anaesthesia for tibia shaft fracture surgery may need reconsideration and challenge recommendations favouring general anaesthesia as the primary method. EDITORIAL COMMENT: This study addresses whether or not spinal anaesthesia might affect acute compartment syndrome and outcomes in tibial shaft fractures. Despite small sample sizes, the findings suggest that spinal anaesthesia does not increase compartment pressures or delay diagnosis of acute compartment syndrome when patients are appropriately monitored. These results support spinal anaesthesia as a safe alternative in selected trauma patients in this context.

trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01795287.

Indexed as

Anesthesia, GeneralAnesthesia, SpinalTibial FracturesAdultCompartment SyndromesFemaleFracture Fixation, IntramedullaryHumansMaleMiddle AgedYoung Adultacute compartment syndromecompartment pressuredelta pressuregeneral anaesthesianear‐infrared spectroscopyspinal anaesthesiatibia fractures

Identifiers

PMID40792424
PMCPMC12340734

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.