Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32426576›Full record

ArticleJournal of gynecology obstetrics and human reproduction2020

Laparoscopic surgery for benign adnexal conditions under spinal anaesthesia: Towards a multidisciplinary minimally invasive approach.

Diego Raimondo, Giulia Borghese, Manuela Mastronardi, Mohamed Mabrouk, Paolo Salucci, Agnese Lambertini, Paolo Casadio, Claudia Tonini, Maria Cristina Meriggiola, Alessandro Arena and 2 more

Open access · greenAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of gynecology obstetrics and human reproduction, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 21% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Observational
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.

Diego RaimondoGynaecology and Human Reproduction Physiopathology, Dipartimento di Scienze Mediche e Chirurgiche (DIMEC), S. Orsola Hospital, University of Bologna, Via Massarenti 13, 40138 Bologna, Italy.
Giulia BorgheseGynaecology and Human Reproduction Physiopathology, Dipartimento di Scienze Mediche e Chirurgiche (DIMEC), S. Orsola Hospital, University of Bologna, Via Massarenti 13, 40138 Bologna, Italy.
Manuela MastronardiGynaecology and Human Reproduction Physiopathology, Dipartimento di Scienze Mediche e Chirurgiche (DIMEC), S. Orsola Hospital, University of Bologna, Via Massarenti 13, 40138 Bologna, Italy.
Mohamed MabroukGynaecology and Human Reproduction Physiopathology, Dipartimento di Scienze Mediche e Chirurgiche (DIMEC), S. Orsola Hospital, University of Bologna, Via Massarenti 13, 40138 Bologna, Italy.
Paolo SalucciGynaecology and Human Reproduction Physiopathology, Dipartimento di Scienze Mediche e Chirurgiche (DIMEC), S. Orsola Hospital, University of Bologna, Via Massarenti 13, 40138 Bologna, Italy.
Agnese LambertiniAnaesthesiology and Resuscitation Unit, Dipartimento di Scienze Mediche e Chirurgiche (DIMEC) S. Orsola Hospital, University of Bologna, Via Massarenti 13, 40138 Bologna, Italy.
Paolo CasadioGynaecology and Human Reproduction Physiopathology, Dipartimento di Scienze Mediche e Chirurgiche (DIMEC), S. Orsola Hospital, University of Bologna, Via Massarenti 13, 40138 Bologna, Italy.
Claudia ToniniAnaesthesiology and Resuscitation Unit, Dipartimento di Scienze Mediche e Chirurgiche (DIMEC) S. Orsola Hospital, University of Bologna, Via Massarenti 13, 40138 Bologna, Italy.
Maria Cristina MeriggiolaGynaecology and Human Reproduction Physiopathology, Dipartimento di Scienze Mediche e Chirurgiche (DIMEC), S. Orsola Hospital, University of Bologna, Via Massarenti 13, 40138 Bologna, Italy.
Alessandro ArenaGynaecology and Human Reproduction Physiopathology, Dipartimento di Scienze Mediche e Chirurgiche (DIMEC), S. Orsola Hospital, University of Bologna, Via Massarenti 13, 40138 Bologna, Italy.
Giulia TarozziAnaesthesiology and Pain Medicine Unit, Dipartimento dell'Emergenza-Urgenza, S. Orsola Hospital, University of Bologna, Via Albertoni 15, 40138 Bologna, Italy.
Renato SeracchioliGynaecology and Human Reproduction Physiopathology, Dipartimento di Scienze Mediche e Chirurgiche (DIMEC), S. Orsola Hospital, University of Bologna, Via Massarenti 13, 40138 Bologna, Italy.
University of Bologna · ITUniversity of Cambridge · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLaparoscopic gynaecological surgery is commonly performed under general anaesthesia with endotracheal intubation. In general surgery, locoregional anaesthesia was applied to laparoscopic procedures, increasing minimally invasive surgery advantages.

aimsTo assess and compare postoperative pain after laparoscopic adnexal procedures for benign conditions under spinal anaesthesia (SA) versus general anaesthesia (GA). Furthermore, anaesthesiologic, surgical and clinical data were evaluated in both groups. MATERIALS AND

methodsThis is a prospective cohort study performed in a tertiary level referral centre for minimally invasive gynaecological surgery (Gynaecology and Human Reproduction Physiopathology, University of Bologna). Women scheduled for adnexal laparoscopic surgery for benign conditions between February and May 2019 were assigned to receive either SA or GA with endotracheal intubation. A sample size of 13 women per group was needed to detect a 2-point difference in pain scores. MAIN

findings13 women were enrolled in the SA arm, 15 in the GA arm. In the SA cohort, the most common intraoperative adverse event was shoulder pain, reported by 3/12 women. At 1, 8, 12, 24 and 48 h after surgery pain was significantly lower in the SA arm (p < .05). Patients submitted to SA experienced no need for opioid drugs administration, unlike those receiving GA. Patients' mobilization and return of bowel function were noted significantly earlier in the SA group (p < .05).

conclusionsSA is a feasible, safe and effective anaesthesiologic technique for laparoscopic gynaecological procedures for benign conditions, allowing a better control of postoperative pain. Women undergoing SA achieve earlier mobilization and bowel canalization. During the Covid-19 pandemics, SA could be useful in reducing the need for invasive procedures on respiratory tract.

Indexed as

Adnexal DiseasesAdnexa UteriAdultAnesthesia, GeneralAnesthesia, SpinalFemaleGynecologic Surgical ProceduresHumansIntubation, IntratrachealLaparoscopyMiddle AgedPostoperative PainProspective StudiesSample SizeASA, American Society of AnesthesiologistBMI, body mass indexETCO2, end-tidal CO2GA, general anaesthesiaGeneral anaesthesiaLaparoscopyLRA, locoregional anaesthesiaNSAID, non-steroid anti-inflammatory drugsPONV, postoperative nausea and vomitingPostoperative painPostoperative recoverySA, spinal anaesthesiaSpinal anaesthesiaVNRS, verbal numerical rating scale

Identifiers

PMID32426576
PMCPMC7229474
OpenAlexW3025177904

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.