Trial reportClinical interventions in aging2026
The Effectiveness and Safety of Dural Puncture Epidural for Aged Patients Undergoing Orthopedic Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial.
Trial report in Clinical interventions in aging, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The dural puncture epidural (DPE) technique is a novel approach for neuraxial anesthesia. While effective for cesarean sections and labor analgesia, its use in orthopedic surgery for elderly patients remains unexplored. This study evaluates the efficacy and safety of DPE in elderly patients undergoing orthopedic surgery. Methods: A total of 126 elderly patients were randomly assigned to three groups: epidural block (EPL), combined spinal epidural block (CSE), and DPE. The primary outcome was the onset time of anesthesia. Secondary outcomes included maximum anesthesia level, Onset time of motor block, blood pressure, and heart rate at key points, anesthetic efficacy, and adverse reactions such as hypotension, respiratory depression, nausea and vomiting, chills, and bradycardia. Results: The onset time of anesthesia in the DPE group was significantly shorter than in the EPL group (17.6±4.0 min vs 19.2±3.9 min, P=0.037) but longer than in the CSE group (17.6±4.0 min vs 7.0±2.8 min, P<0.001). The Onset time of motor block was notably longer in the DPE group compared to the CSE group (20.6±3.8 min vs 9.2±3.9 min, P<0.001). At five minutes post-anesthesia, mean arterial pressure was significantly higher in the DPE group than in the CSE group (88.2±7.0 mmHg vs 84.4±7.6 mmHg, P=0.018); however, no significant difference was found between the EPL and DPE groups. Additionally, there were no significant differences among all three groups regarding hemodynamic parameters at other assessed time points, incidence of adverse reactions, or anesthetic effects. Conclusion: The onset time of DPE is faster than that of EPL, its impact on the circulatory system is less than that of CSE, and it has a satisfactory anesthetic effect, which may improve the anesthesia management in elderly orthopedic surgeries.
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.