SynthesisThe Journal of international medical research2026
Contributors to failed spinal anesthesia.
Synthesis in The Journal of international medical research, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BackgroundSpinal anesthesia is a commonly used anesthetic technique for a variety of surgical procedures. Despite its popularity and safety, failed spinal anesthesia remains an important clinical challenge, resulting in patient discomfort, need for repeated attempts, and/or conversion to general anesthesia. This systematic review compiles contemporary evidence from 2015 to 2025 on the predictors of failed spinal anesthesia.MethodsA systematic search was performed using PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. Studies published between January 2015 and May 2025 reporting contributors of failed spinal anesthesia were included. Methodological quality was evaluated using the Joanna Briggs Institute tool.ResultsTwenty-one studies comprising obstetric, orthopedic, urologic, and general surgical populations were included. Failure rates ranged from 0.9% to 25.3%. Contributors of failed spinal included low local anesthetic dose, use of isobaric solutions, provider inexperience, presence of bloody cerebrospinal fluid, absence of free cerebrospinal fluid flow, lumbar puncture at the L4-L5 interspace, high body mass index, prior spinal anesthesia exposure, emergency surgery, and multiple puncture attempts.ConclusionFailed spinal anesthesia is multifactorial and is influenced by technical, patient-related, and contextual factors. Optimization of technique, adequate dosing, enhanced provider training, and improved patient assessment may reduce failure rates.
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.