SynthesisBMC anesthesiology2026
Comparison of neuraxial anesthesia and analgesia strategies for obese parturients: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC anesthesiology, 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundNeuraxial block failure in obese parturients is a significant clinical challenge, leading to inadequate pain relief and increased maternal risk. Novel techniques such as the Combined Spinal-Epidural (CSE) and Dural Puncture Epidural (DPE) have emerged as promising alternatives to standard epidural, but their comparative efficacy and safety have not been systematically evaluated in a comprehensive network. This systematic review and network meta-analysis aimed to determine the optimal neuraxial technique for preventing analgesia and anesthesia failure in obese parturients, with specific attention to morbidly obese subgroups and procedural efficiency.
methodsFollowing Preferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, we systematically searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science for relevant studies published up to October 2025. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated different neuraxial techniques in adult obese parturients (Body Mass Index ≥ 30 kg/m²). The methodological quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. A frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis was used to calculate pooled Odds Ratios (ORs) and their 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs). The hierarchy of interventions was determined by P-scores.
resultsEleven RCTs comprising a total of 1,178 patients were included in the final analysis. For the primary outcome of preventing block failure, CSE ranked highest (P-score 0.88), followed by DPE (P-score 0.74). Compared with the standard epidural technique, both CSE (Odds Ratio [OR] 0.41; 95% CI 0.19-0.93) and DPE (OR 0.50; 95% CI 0.31-0.82) significantly reduced the risk of failure. In the subgroup analysis of morbidly obese parturients (BMI ≥ 40 kg/m²), DPE and CSE remained the top-ranked interventions. Regarding safety, CSE was associated with a higher risk of hypotension compared to standard epidural, while DPE showed a comparable safety profile. Procedure times were generally similar across techniques, though heterogeneity existed.
conclusionCSE and DPE appear to be the most effective neuraxial techniques for preventing block failure in obese parturients. While CSE ranks highest in efficacy, it carries an increased risk of hypotension. DPE offers a favorable balance of high efficacy and safety, particularly in morbidly obese populations. The choice of technique represents a clinical trade-off, where DPE may offer a more balanced efficacy and safety profile for labor analgesia. The optimal technique for cesarean delivery in this high-risk population remains uncertain due to a lack of direct comparative evidence, highlighting a critical area for future research.
trial registrationThe protocol for this systematic review was prospectively registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO), registration number CRD420251244336.
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.