ArticlePain research & management2020
Efficacy and Safety of Continuous Paravertebral Block after Minimally Invasive Radical Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer.
Article in Pain research & management, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Tegileridine versus Oliceridine for Acute Postoperative Pain Management in Patients After Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy: A Preliminary Randomized Controlled Trial.Drug design, development and therapy · 2025Trial
- Feasibility and effectiveness of multi-injection thoracic paravertebral block via the intrathoracic approach for analgesia after thoracoscopic-laparoscopic esophagectomy.Esophagus : official journal of the Japan Esophageal Society · 2021Trial
- Epidurals in esophagectomy: end of an era?Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- The Role of Methadone in Postoperative Analgesia in Esophagectomy Patients-A Retrospective Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- [Epidural Analgesia in Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy: Evidence and Practice].Sichuan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Sichuan University. Medical science edition · 2025Review
- Analgesia in esophagectomy: a narrative review.Journal of thoracic disease · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To compare the effects of continuous paravertebral block analgesia and patient-controlled intravenous analgesia after minimally invasive radical esophagectomy for esophageal cancer and their effects on postoperative recovery. Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed among 233 patients who underwent minimally invasive esophageal cancer radical operation and met the requirements, including 87 patients (group C) who were successfully placed with a continuous paravertebral block device under direct vision and 146 patients (group P) who used a patient-controlled intravenous analgesia device. Visual analogue pain score (VAS) at rest and in motion for 1, 3, 6, 12, 24, 36, and 48 hours after awakening, incidence of adverse reactions of the two analgesic methods, occurrence of pulmonary complications after operation, use of emergency analgesics, and hospital stay after operation was recorded. Results: The VAS scores of group C in resting and active state at 1, 3, 6, 12, 24, 36, and 48 hours after operation were significantly lower than those of group P ( Conclusion: Paravertebral block is safe and effective for patients undergoing minimally invasive radical esophagectomy. The incidence of adverse reactions and complications is lower, and the satisfaction of postoperative analgesia is higher, which is beneficial to the rapid recovery of patients after operation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.