ArticleAnaesthesia2025
Global anaesthesia practice using inguinal hernia surgery as a tracer condition: a secondary analysis of an international prospective cohort study.
Article in Anaesthesia, 2025. 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
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
introductionRestoration of surgical capacity is essential to post-COVID-19 recovery. This study explored the use and safety of anaesthesia options for inguinal hernia surgery, a common tracer condition, to describe current global practice and highlight opportunities to build the capacity of health systems.
methodsThis is a secondary analysis of an international prospective cohort study of consecutive patients who underwent elective inguinal hernia surgery. We used a consensus process to define generalisable outcomes to measure patient selection, utilisation of hospital capacity and peri-operative safety in patients who received locoregional, spinal or general anaesthesia for their surgery.
resultsIn total, 16,554 patients from 83 countries were included. Locoregional anaesthesia was performed in 1536 (9.2%) of patients, compared with 9165 (55.4%) who had general and 55,853 (35.4%) who had spinal anaesthesia. Patient selection outcomes were comparable across anaesthesia groups. As a measure of hospital capacity, adjusted day-case rates were higher for locoregional anaesthesia (OR 6.62, 95%CI 5.13-8.54, p < 0.001) but not for spinal anaesthesia (OR 0.97, 95%CI 0.84-1.12, p = 0.68) compared with general anaesthesia. Complications were lower in patients who underwent locoregional anaesthesia (OR = 0.67, 95%CI 0.52-0.87, p = 0.001) but not for spinal anaesthesia (OR = 0.90, 95%CI 0.77-1.05, p = 0.167) compared with general anaesthesia after risk adjustment. DISCUSSION: This study has filled knowledge gaps of anaesthesia practice in common surgeries across the world. Locoregional and spinal anaesthesia could be adopted as safe options to increase surgical volume when there is limited access to general anaesthesia.
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.