Skip to main content
. 2018 Jun 21;2018(6):CD007105. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007105.pub4

O'Neill 2014.

Methods Double‐blinded (participant/outcome assessor), placebo‐controlled, randomized clinical trial
Sequence generation unclear
Follow‐up: 4‐6 months
Participants Participants: 40 adults in a university setting, Nashville, TN, USA
Operation: ICBG for spinal fusion
Groups, size: 20/20
Age (± SD), group 1, 2: 66 (± 12), 62 (± 8)
Men/women (group 1, 2): 13/7, 13/7
Comorbidities: tobacco use, group 1, 2 (18, 16); alcohol use, group 1, 2 (7, 6)
Interventions Group 1 (bupivacaine): intra‐op: rectangular window of approximately 4 × 1 cm was created in the cortex of the posterior superior iliac spine using osteotomes and was then hinged open to allow access to cancellous bone. After graft harvest, a gel foam soaked in 10 mL 0.25% bupivacaine was packed into the wound. The cortical bone window was replaced and the wound closed.
Group 2 (saline): intra‐op: same method of gel‐foam packing into cortex of posterior superior iliac spine. Gel was soaked in 10 mL 0.9% saline.
Adjuvants: none
Immediate post‐op pain control: not reported
Outcomes Continuous: VAS at 4‐6 months
Dichotomus: none
Other reported: surgical data included the type of surgery, surgical indication, number of levels fused, the use of instrumentation, and the operative time. Health outcomes were back and neck pain, satisfaction with surgical results, and mental/physical states as determined by the Short Form‐12.
Adverse events: 1 participant in the saline group had infection
Notes The reported continuous data were insufficient for inclusion in the additional Bayesian inclusive analysis.
Funding sources: "the authors have no relevant financial relationships to disclose."
Conflicts of interest: conflicts of interest statement not provided
Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk Quote: "a block randomization scheme was used," but the method of randomization was not described.
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Low risk Quote: "a sealed envelope containing the group assignment was opened and the appropriate intervention was performed"
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk Participants and surgeons were blinded, but knowledge of anaesthesia team not described
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Quote: "all forms were administered and collected by a research nurse without knowledge of the assigned group"
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk 19/20 in the treatment group and 17/20 in the control group completed the final evaluation.
Quote: "this met the goal of 17 patients per group as determined from the sample size calculation."
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Unclear risk The protocol defined the VAS at 3 months as the primary outcome, but it remained unclear from the manuscript if the pain was recorded at rest or at movement and if the current or the average pain was the initial primary outcome.
Null bias Low risk Experimental treatment was effective in improving immediate postoperative pain control for some outcome measures at least.