Trial reportBMC anesthesiology2025
Ultrasound-guided intermediate versus deep cervical plexus block for carotid endarterectomy: a randomized controlled study.
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 NCT05353218 (Efficacy of Ultrasound-Guided Intermediate Versus Deep Cervical Plexus Block for Carotid Endarterectomy), which is not on this 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.
Efficacy of Ultrasound-Guided Intermediate Versus Deep Cervical Plexus Block for Carotid Endarterectomy: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
backgroundRegional anesthesia is commonly preferred technique for carotid endarterectomy (CEA) as it allows neuromotor evaluation and provides more stable hemodynamics. Cervical plexus blocks (CPBs) including superficial, intermediate and deep, are used alone or in combination in carotid surgery. Ultrasound guidance provides better visualization with increased safety for CPBs. The aim of this study is to compare the anesthetic efficacy of deep and intermediate CPBs by assessing the number of patients requiring additional local anesthetic during CEA.
methodsIn this randomized, single-blind study, we enrolled 90 patients who underwent CEA. Patients who received either intermediate or deep CPB were divided into two groups: Group of Intermediate (GI) and Group of Deep (GD). The number of patients requiring additional lidocaine infiltration, time spent for block performance, extra number of needle insertions and orientations, assessment of cutaneous sensory loss in four peripheral cervical plexus nerve territories (lesser occipital, supraclavicular, transverse cervical and great auricular), pain scores, amount of additional lidocaine and complications were recorded. Patient and surgeon satisfaction were also evaluated.
resultsNineteen out of 40 patients (47.5%) in GI and 10 out of 41 patients (24.5%) in GD needed additional lidocaine infiltration intraoperatively (p = 0.03). Time spent for intermediate block was 208.5 (50-332) s and for deep was 320 (90-780) s (p < 0.001). The blocks were performed successfully with single needle orientation 85% of GI and in 68% of GD (p = 0.11). The number of extra needle insertions was significantly higher in GD compared to GI (1 [1-4] and 1 [1-2], respectively; p = 0.04). All patients achieved adequate cutaneous sensory loss for surgery. Pain scores and amount of additional lidocaine were comparable. Patient satisfaction was significantly higher in GI than in GD (p = 0.03).
conclusionsIn this study we found that significantly fewer patients required additional lidocaine in deep CPB than in intermediate CPB with low initiation LA volumes under USG guidance.
trial registrationThe study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (registration number NCT05353218) on 24/04/2022.
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.