Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28116506›Full record

Trial reportJournal of anesthesia2017

A randomized controlled trial comparing paravertebral block via the surgical field with thoracic epidural block using ropivacaine for post-thoracotomy pain relief.

Takahiro Tamura, Shoichi Mori, Atsushi Mori, Masahiko Ando, Shuichi Yokota, Yasuyuki Shibata, Kimitoshi Nishiwaki

Abstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of anesthesia, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Takahiro TamuraDivision of Anesthesia, Japanese Red Cross Nagoya Daiichi Hospital, Nagoya, Japan.
Shoichi MoriDivision of Thoracic Surgery, Japanese Red Cross Nagoya Daiichi Hospital, Nagoya, Japan.
Atsushi MoriDepartment of Perioperative Management System, Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine, Nagoya, Japan.
Masahiko AndoCenter for Advanced Medicine and Clinical Research, Nagoya University Hospital, Nagoya, Japan.
Shuichi YokotaDivision of Anesthesia, Japanese Red Cross Nagoya Daiichi Hospital, Nagoya, Japan.
Yasuyuki ShibataDepartment of Anesthesiology, Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine, 65 Tsurumai-cho, Showa-Ku, Nagoya, 466-8550, Japan.
Kimitoshi NishiwakiDepartment of Anesthesiology, Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine, 65 Tsurumai-cho, Showa-Ku, Nagoya, 466-8550, Japan. nishi@med.nagoya-u.ac.jp.
Nagoya University · JPJapanese Red Cross Nagoya Daiichi Hospital · JPNagoya University Hospital · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeWe conducted a comparative study to evaluate analgesic efficacy between paravertebral block via the surgical field (PVB-sf), in which the catheter was inserted into the ventral side of the sympathetic trunk in the paravertebral space by a thoracic surgeon under thoracoscopic visualization, and epidural block (Epi) using ropivacaine for post-thoracotomy pain relief.

methodsLung cancer patients scheduled for lobectomy via thoracotomy were randomly allocated to receive either PVB-sf or Epi (n = 36 per group). Before thoracotomy closure, 0.375% ropivacaine was administered as a bolus (PVB-sf, 20 mL; Epi, 5 mL), followed by a 300-mL continuous infusion of 0.2% ropivacaine at 5 mL/h. Postoperative pain was assessed using a visual analog scale (VAS) score at various time points, including the primary endpoint of 2 h after ropivacaine bolus injection. Sensory block area, vital signs, serum ropivacaine concentrations, and side effects were also evaluated.

resultsThe Epi group showed significantly lower VAS scores and blood pressure and a wider sensory block area than the PVB-sf group at all evaluation time points. While the mean serum ropivacaine concentration in the PVB-sf group was significantly higher than that in the Epi group until 1 h after injection of the ropivacaine bolus, there was no significant difference at any subsequent assessment point. The incidence of side effects was similar between the groups.

conclusionThe Epi was superior to PVB-sf for the management of post-thoracotomy pain in this patient cohort. The number of dermatomes anaesthetized by Epi was greater than that anaesthetized by PVB-sf. No difference in complication rates was observed between the two groups.

Indexed as

AgedAmidesAnalgesicsAnesthesia, EpiduralAnesthesia, LocalAnesthetics, LocalBlood PressureFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNerve BlockPain MeasurementPostoperative PainProspective StudiesRopivacaineAmidesAnalgesicsAnesthetics, LocalRopivacaineEpidural blockParavertebral block via the surgical fieldRopivacaineThoracotomyVisual analog scale

Identifiers

PMID28116506
OpenAlexW2580830348

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.