SynthesisJournal of anesthesia2024
Paramedian versus midline approach of spinal anesthesia: a systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of anesthesia, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Narrative Review on Multimodal Spinal Anesthesia: Old Technique and New Use.Journal of anesthesia and translational medicine · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
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 at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeMidline approach of spinal anesthesia has been widely used for patients undergoing surgical procedures. However, it might not be effective for obstetric patients and elderly with degenerative spine changes. Primary objective was to examine the success rate at the first attempt between the paramedian and midline spinal anesthesia in adults undergoing surgery.
methodsDatabases of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL were searched from their starting date until February 2023. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing the paramedian versus midline approach of spinal anesthesia were included. The primary outcome was the success rate at the first attempt of spinal anesthesia.
resultsOur review included 36 RCTs (n = 5379). Compared to the midline approach, paramedian approach may increase success rate at the first attempt but the evidence is very uncertain (OR: 0.47, 95% CI 0.27-0.82, ρ = 0.007, level of evidence:very low). Our pooled data indicates that the paramedian approach likely reduced incidence of post-spinal headache (OR: 2.07, 95% CI 1.51-2.84, ρ < 0.00001, level of evidence:moderate). The evidence suggests that the paramedian approach may result in a reduction in the occurrence of paresthesia (OR: 1.61, 95% CI 1.06-2.45, ρ = 0.03, level of evidence:low).
conclusionsOur meta-analysis of 36 RCTs showed that paramedian approach may result in little to no difference in success rate at the first attempt owing to its very low level of evidence. However, given the low level of evidence and studies with small sample sizes, these findings need to be interpreted with caveat. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023397781.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.