MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2735794349 · doi:10.1213/ane.0000000000002254

Hyperbaric Versus Isobaric Bupivacaine for Spinal Anesthesia: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis for Adult Patients Undergoing Noncesarean Delivery Surgery

2017· review· en· W2735794349 on OpenAlexaff
Vishal Uppal, Susanne Retter, Harsha Shanthanna, Christopher Prabhakar, Dolores M. McKeen

Bibliographic record

VenueAnesthesia & Analgesia · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAnesthesia and Pain Management
Canadian institutionsSt. Paul's HospitalNova Scotia Health AuthorityIzaak Walton Killam Health CentreDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAnesthesiaRandomized controlled trialRelative riskBupivacaineMeta-analysisNauseaConfidence intervalVomitingSpinal anesthesiaSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: It is widely believed that the choice between isobaric bupivacaine and hyperbaric bupivacaine formulations alters the block characteristics for the conduct of surgery under spinal anesthesia. The aim of this study was to systematically review the comparative evidence regarding the effectiveness and safety of the 2 formulations when used for spinal anesthesia for adult noncesarean delivery surgery. METHODS: Key electronic databases were searched for randomized controlled trials, excluding cesarean delivery surgeries under spinal anesthesia, without any language or date restrictions. The primary outcome measure for this review was the failure of spinal anesthesia. Two independent reviewers selected the studies and extracted the data. Results were expressed as relative risk (RR) or mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: Seven hundred fifty-one studies were identified between 1946 and 2016. After screening, there were 16 randomized controlled clinical trials, including 724 participants, that provided data for the meta-analysis. The methodological reporting of most studies was poor, and appropriate judgment of their individual risk of bias elements was not possible. There was no difference between the 2 drugs regarding the need for conversion to general anesthesia (RR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.08-4.41; P = .62; I = 0%), incidence of hypotension (RR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.69-1.92; P = .58; I = 0%), nausea/vomiting (RR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.06-1.32; P = .11; I = 7%), or onset of sensory block (MD = 1.7 minutes; 95% CI, -3.5 to 0.1; P = .07; I = 0%). The onset of motor block (MD = 4.6 minutes; 95% CI, 7.5-1.7; P = .002; I = 78%) was significantly faster with hyperbaric bupivacaine. Conversely, the duration of motor (MD = 45.2 minutes; 95% CI, 66.3-24.2; P < .001; I = 87%) and sensory (MD = 29.4 minutes; 95% CI, 15.5-43.3; P < .001; I = 73%) block was longer with isobaric bupivacaine. CONCLUSIONS: Both hyperbaric bupivacaine and isobaric bupivacaine provided effective anesthesia with no difference in the failure rate or adverse effects. The hyperbaric formulation allows for a relatively rapid motor block onset, with shorter duration of motor and sensory block. The isobaric formulation has a slower onset and provides a longer duration of both sensory and motor block. Nevertheless, the small sample size and high heterogeneity involving these outcomes suggest that all the results should be treated with caution.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.826
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0180.010
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.157
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.202 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations63
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnesthesia & AnalgesiaSame topicAnesthesia and Pain ManagementFrench-language works237,207