Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27518726›Full record

Trial reportJournal of anesthesia2016

Retrolaminar block: analgesic efficacy and safety evaluation.

Takeshi Murouchi, Michiaki Yamakage

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of anesthesia, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
8.8field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

38 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 80 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Comparison of the effects of retrolaminar block (RLB) and erector spinae plane (ESP) block on postoperative recovery quality and pain in lumbar spinal surgery.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2026
    Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Takeshi MurouchiDepartnent of Anesthesia, Kitami Red Cross Hospital, North 6 East 2, Kitami, Hokkaido, 090-8666, Japan. g-fields@fc4.so-net.ne.jp.ORCID 0000-0003-2619-3261
Michiaki YamakageDepartment of Anesthesiology, Sapporo Medical University School of Medicine, Sapporo, 060-8543, Japan.
Japanese Red Cross Hokkaido College of Nursing · JPSapporo Medical University · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeRetrolaminar block (RLB) is a thoracic truncal block that can produce analgesia for the thoracic and abdominal wall. However, the characteristics of RLB are not well known. The aim of this study was to determine analgesic efficacy by measuring postoperative consume of patient-controlled analgesia (PCA), additional nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug (NSAID) rescue, and opioid rescue. Our secondary analysis included assessment of the chronological change in arterial levobupivacaine concentrations after the block.

methodsThis prospective, randomized, double-blinded study included 30 patients scheduled for modified radical mastectomy under general anesthesia. The patients were randomized to receive either a landmark-guided RLB or paravertebral block (PVB) catheter placement on T4. Continuous infusion with 4 ml/h of 0.25 % levobupivacaine was started for 72 h, after initial injection of 20 ml 0.375 % levobupivacaine before surgery. Postoperative pain was compared using the amount of block PCA (3 ml 0.25 % levobupivacaine with 30-min lockout), NSAID, and opioid rescue. Arterial blood was sampled for 120 min after the initial injection.

resultsThe frequency of postoperative block PCA use was significantly high after RLB in 24 h [p = 0.01; 6 (3-12) vs. 2.5 (0.3-3) times, respectively]. There was no PCA use after 24 h in either group. There was no postoperative opioid rescue use throughout the study. After RLB and PVB, there was no significant difference in T

conclusionContinuous RLB was not inferior to PVB except for the first 24 h, and was satisfactory after mastectomy. RLB showed safe, low peak arterial levobupivacaine concentrations.

Indexed as

AgedAnalgesia, Patient-ControlledAnalgesicsAnalgesics, OpioidAnesthesia, GeneralAnti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-SteroidalBupivacaineDouble-Blind MethodFemaleHumansLevobupivacaineMastectomy, Modified RadicalMiddle AgedNerve BlockPostoperative PainProspective StudiesAnalgesicsAnalgesics, OpioidAnti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-SteroidalBupivacaineLevobupivacaineBreast surgeryRetrolaminar block

Identifiers

PMID27518726
OpenAlexW2514310873

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.