MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3103339225 · doi:10.1089/end.2020.1054

Safety and Efficacy of Transurethral Resection of Bladder Tumor Comparing Spinal Anesthesia with Spinal Anesthesia with an Obturator Nerve Block: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2020· review· en· W3103339225 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Anil Krishan, Angus Bruce, Shehab Khashaba, Mohamed Abouelela, Syed Ali Ehsanullah

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Endourology · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer, Stress, Anesthesia, and Immune Response
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSpinal anesthesiaResectionBladder tumorMeta-analysisObturator nerveAnesthesiaSurgeryUrologyNerve blockBladder cancerInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aims: To investigate whether spinal anesthesia with an obturator nerve block (SA+ONB) can be effectively used for transurethral resection of bladder tumor (TURBT) during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic to improve patient outcomes while also avoiding aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs). We aimed to compare outcomes of TURBTs using spinal anesthesia (SA) alone vs SA+ONB in terms of rates of obturator reflex, bladder perforation, incomplete tumor resection, tumor recurrence, and local anesthetic toxicity. Methods: We conducted a comprehensive search of electronic databases (MEDLINE, PUBMED, EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL, SCOPUS, Google Scholar, and Web of Science), identifying studies comparing the outcomes of TURBT using SA vs spinal with an ONB. The Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) and the Newcastle–Ottawa scale for observational studies were used to assess the included studies. Random effects modeling was used to calculate pooled outcome data. Results: Four RCTs and three cohort studies were identified, enrolling a total of 448 patients. The use of SA+ONB was associated with a significantly reduced risk of obturator reflex ( p < 0.00001), bladder perforation ( p = 0.02), incomplete resection ( p < 0.0001), and 12-month tumor recurrence ( p = 0.005). ONB was not associated with an increased risk of local anesthetic toxicity (0/159). Conclusion: Our meta-analysis suggests that TURBT using SA+ONB is superior to the use of SA alone. During the COVID-19 pandemic, where avoidance of AGPs such as a general anesthesia is paramount, the use of an ONB with SA is essential for the safety of both patients and staff without compromising care. Further high-quality RCTs with adequate sample sizes are required to compare the different techniques of ONB as well as comparing this method with general anesthesia with complete neuromuscular blockade.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.751
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0150.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.277 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designMeta-analysis
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

Citations11
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of EndourologySame topicCancer, Stress, Anesthesia, and Immune ResponseFrench-language works237,207