Trial reportBMC anesthesiology2026
Ultrasound-guided percutaneous versus trans-nasal pterygopalatine fossa block in endoscopic trans-sphenoidal pituitary gland surgery: a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in BMC anesthesiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06836583 (ULTRASOUND-GUIDED PERCUTANEOUS VERSUS TRANS-NASAL PTERYGOPALATINE FOSSA BLOCK IN ENDOSCOPIC TRANS-SPHENOIDAL PITUITARY GLAND SURGERY), which is not on this 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.
Ultrasound-guided percutaneous versus trans-nasal pterygopalatine fossa block in endoscopic trans-sphenoidal pituitary gland surgery: randomized controlled trial
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVarious techniques are being used to create a relatively bloodless surgical field during endoscopic trans-sphenoidal pituitary gland surgery (ETS). Pterygopalatine fossa (PPF) block helps to improve the field of surgery and control haemodynamic fluctuations.
methodsEligible patients with the American Society of Anaesthesiologists class I or II were randomly classified by closed envelope method. Group TN received bilateral transnasal PPFB with 4 mL of 0.25% bupivacaine after induction of general anaesthesia. Group PC received bilateral ultrasound-guided infrazygomatic percutaneous PPFB with the same dosage and timing.
resultsA total of 60 patients were included and randomized into the two groups. Between the two groups, there was no statistically significant difference in mean arterial blood pressure (MABP) and heart rate (HR). Fentanyl and dexametomidine were less significantly used intraoperatively in the PC group. Total intraoperative isoflurane consumption and the mean consumption per minute used intraoperatively were significantly higher in TN group (p < 0.001). Regarding Boezaart surgical field grading was no statistically significant difference between Group TN and Group PC at any time point.
conclusionUltrasound-guided percutaneous PPF block offers superior efficacy in reducing intraoperative anaesthetic consumption and opioid use compared to the transnasal approach in endoscopic transsphenoidal pituitary surgery. This technique contributes to enhanced haemodynamic stability and a more efficient anaesthetic management profile during surgery.
trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov. Identifier NCT06836583, 24 February 2025.
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.