ArticleCureus2025
Comparison of Segmental Thoracic and Lumbar Subarachnoid Block in Preeclamptic Patients Undergoing Cesarean Section: An Open-Label Randomized Trial.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comment on "Comparison of analgesic modalities after cesarean section: a network meta-analysis and systematic review".International journal of surgery (London, England) · 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Preeclampsia is a serious hypertensive disorder of pregnancy characterized by multi-organ dysfunction and often necessitates cesarean delivery. While spinal anesthesia is preferred for cesarean sections, lumbar subarachnoid block may result in significant hypotension due to extensive sympathetic blockade. Thoracic spinal anesthesia has emerged as a potential alternative with better hemodynamic control. Objective To compare the efficacy, safety, and hemodynamic effects of thoracic versus lumbar subarachnoid block in preeclamptic patients undergoing cesarean delivery. Methods In this prospective, open-label, randomized controlled trial, 160 preeclamptic patients scheduled for urgent cesarean sections were allocated to receive either thoracic spinal anesthesia (1.5 mL 0.5% bupivacaine heavy + 25 μg fentanyl) or lumbar spinal anesthesia (2 mL 0.5% bupivacaine heavy + 25 μg fentanyl). The primary outcome was hemodynamic stability; secondary outcomes included surgical anesthesia success, block onset and duration, adverse events, neonatal outcomes, and patient satisfaction. Data were analyzed using appropriate statistical tests, with p<0.05 considered significant. Results Hemodynamic stability was superior in the thoracic group, with a lower incidence of hypotension (11.68% vs. 26.31%, p=0.038) and significantly reduced mean vasopressor (ephedrine) requirement (8.57 ± 1.32 mg vs. 14.41 ± 2.62 mg, p < 0.001). Surgical anesthesia success rates were similar in both groups (thoracic: 96.67%, lumbar: 95%, p=1.0). Thoracic spinal anesthesia was associated with shorter sensory (132.61 ± 13.81 vs. 148.48 ± 14.52 min, p=0.001) and motor block durations (102.23 ± 11.13 vs. 124.01 ± 11.01 min, p=0.001), less shivering and nausea, and greater patient satisfaction. Neonatal Apgar scores and 6-week outcomes were comparable between groups (p>0.05). Conclusion Thoracic spinal anesthesia provides superior hemodynamic stability and better patient comfort with comparable surgical efficacy and neonatal safety, making it a viable option for cesarean delivery in preeclamptic patients when administered by experienced clinicians.
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.