Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34593667›Full record

ArticleThe Korean journal of pain2021

Erector spinae plane block for spinal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Xiao Liang, Weilong Zhou, Yuchao Fan

2 registry-linked trialsOpen access · diamondAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The Korean journal of pain, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 32 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
7.7field-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.

NCT06958718 phase4completednot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

Efficacy of Ultrasound-guided Versus Surgical Erector Spinae Plane Block With a Mixture of Bupivacaine and Dexmedetomidine in Lumbar Spinal Fusion Surgery: A Prospective Randomized Double-Blinded Clinical Trial.

TypeinterventionalSponsorFayoum University HospitalRan2025 to 2025Enrolled52ConditionsPost Operative PainArmsUltrasound Guided erector spinae plane block (UB), Surgical erector spinae plane block (SB), Dexmedetomidine, Bupivacaine Hcl 0.5% Inj
NCT07514806 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

Estimation of Intraoperative Anaesthetic Drug Requirement in General Anaesthesia With or Without Erector Spinae Plane Block in Lumbar Spondylolisthesis Surgery

TypeinterventionalSponsorBangladesh Medical UniversityRan2024 to 2024Enrolled50ConditionsSpondylolisthesis, Analgesia, Postoperative, ESPBArmsControl Group: General Anesthesia Without Erector Spinae Plane Block, Intervention Group: General Anesthesia With Ultrasound-Guided Erector Spinae Plane Block
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

32 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 56 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Erector spinae plane block for postoperative pain.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024
    Pooled it
  5. Erector spinae plane block for postoperative pain.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Xiao LiangDepartment of Anesthesiology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1235-3690
Weilong ZhouDepartment of Infection Control, West China Second University Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7674-8299
Yuchao FanDepartment of Anesthesiology, Sichuan Cancer Center, Sichuan Cancer Hospital & Institute, School of Medicine, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8565-2777
Sichuan University · CNUniversity of Electronic Science and Technology of China · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough the erector spinae plane block has been used in various truncal surgical procedures, its clinical benefits in patients undergoing spinal surgery remain controversial. The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the clinical benefits of erector spinae plane block in patients undergoing spinal surgery.

methodsWe searched the Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure for randomized controlled trials comparing the erector spinae plane block with a nonblocked control for spinal surgery.

resultsTwelve studies encompassing 696 subjects were included in our systematic review and meta-analysis. We found that the erector spinae plane block decreased postoperative pain scores and opioid consumption in the postoperative and intraoperative periods. Moreover, it prolonged the time to the first rescue analgesic, reduced the number of patients who required rescue analgesia, and lowered the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting. However, it did not exhibit efficacy in decreasing the incidence of urinary retention and itching or shortening the length of hospital stays, or the time to first ambulation.

conclusionsErector spinae plane block improves analgesic efficacy among patients undergoing spinal surgery compared with nonblocked controls; however, there is insufficient evidence regarding the benefits of erector spinae plane block for rapid recovery.

Indexed as

AnalgesiaAnalgesicsDiskectomyEnhanced Recovery After SurgeryErector Spinae Plane BlockLaminectomyMeta-AnalysisNerve BlockNeurosurgical ProceduresOpioidPainPostoperativePostoperative Nausea and VomitingRandomized Controlled Trial.

Identifiers

PMID34593667
PMCPMC8494958
OpenAlexW3203836820

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

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.