ArticleCureus2025
A Randomized Controlled Trial of Intrathecal 1% Chloroprocaine Versus 0.75% Hyperbaric Bupivacaine for Short Obstetric Procedures.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 Intrathecal bupivacaine is commonly used for short obstetric procedures, including transvaginal cerclage placement, external cephalic version, and postpartum bilateral tubal ligation, despite evidence that chloroprocaine is associated with earlier postanesthesia care unit discharge after ambulatory surgery. We hypothesized that intrathecal chloroprocaine would shorten the duration of motor block after short obstetric procedures. Methods Single-center, randomized trial equally assigning 50 participants undergoing transvaginal cerclage placement, external cephalic version, or postpartum bilateral tubal ligation to 50 mg of 1% chloroprocaine or 10.5 mg of 0.75% hyperbaric bupivacaine. The primary endpoint was duration of motor block, defined by the count of assessments at five-minute intervals from study drug administration to knee flexion. Secondary endpoints included time to postanesthesia care unit discharge readiness, time to first ambulation, and rescue bladder catheterization. The study included an a priori halting rule to terminate if two chloroprocaine subjects failed to complete surgery under spinal anesthesia. Results The study was terminated at 27 subjects when a second spinal failure occurred in the chloroprocaine arm amongst patients undergoing tubal ligation surgery. Chloroprocaine was associated with decreased count of five-minute assessments until knee flexion (mean difference=7.6, 95% CI=2.9, 12.4; P=0.003), shorter time to postanesthesia care unit discharge readiness (mean difference=36.8 min, 95% CI=15.6, 58.0; P=0.001), and shorter time to first ambulation (mean difference 157 min, 95% CI=94.7, 219.3; P<0.001). Bupivacaine, relative to chloroprocaine, was associated with a 3.8-fold increased risk (95% CI=1.4, NA; P=0.02) of rescue bladder catheterization. Conclusion When utilized for transvaginal cerclage placement and external cephalic version, intrathecal chloroprocaine may shorten motor block, time to postanesthesia care unit discharge readiness, time to first ambulation, and reduce the frequency of bladder catheterization. Administration of 50 mg of 1% chloroprocaine intrathecally does not provide adequate anesthesia for bilateral tubal ligation surgery.
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.