ArticleSaudi journal of anaesthesia
Spinal anesthesia in ASA III and IV physical status pediatric patients: A retrospective review.
Article in Saudi journal of anaesthesia. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Spinal anesthesia (SA) may mitigate some of the risks associated with general anesthesia (GA). As an alternative to GA, SA can be used in a variety of surgical procedures and may be particularly beneficial in patients with significant comorbid conditions. We retrospectively review our experience with SA in the American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) physical classification III and IV patients. Methods: Retrospective chart review of ASA III/IV pediatric-aged patients who received SA for surgical procedures from 2016-2023. Data included patient demographics, procedure and anesthetic characteristics, surgical procedure, additional intraoperative sedation, reasons for conversion to GA, intraoperative adverse events, and reasons for emergency department return. Results: The initial study cohort included 69 patients (median age eight months) with ASA physical status III or IV who presented for SA. SA failed in eight patients. This left a cohort of 61 patients in whom SA was successful (88%). Congenital cardiac, respiratory, genetic, and renal disorders were among the most common comorbid conditions. Thirty-six of the 61 patients (59%) received no additional sedative or analgesic medications following lumbar puncture for SA. The most common intraoperative adverse event was systolic blood pressure (sBP) less than 60 mmHg ( Conclusion: SA offers a safe and effective alternative to GA for ASA physical class III/IV patients. The low rate of intraoperative complications highlights the safety profile of the technique even in high-risk surgical candidates.
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.