Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35581710›Full record

Trial reportKorean journal of anesthesiology2022

Feasibility and efficacy of erector spinae plane block versus transversus abdominis plane block in laparoscopic bariatric surgery: a randomized comparative trial.

Mohamed Elshazly, Yasser Mohamed El-Halafawy, Dina Zakaria Mohamed, Khaled Abd El Wahab, Tamer Mohamed Kheir Mohamed

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Korean journal of anesthesiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
5.9field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

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

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Mohamed ElshazlyDepartment of Anesthesia, Surgical ICU, and Pain Management, Faculty of Medicine, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt.
Yasser Mohamed El-HalafawyDepartment of Anesthesia, Surgical ICU, and Pain Management, Faculty of Medicine, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt.
Dina Zakaria MohamedDepartment of Anesthesia, Surgical ICU, and Pain Management, Faculty of Medicine, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt.
Khaled Abd El WahabDepartment of Anesthesia, Surgical ICU, and Pain Management, Faculty of Medicine, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt.
Tamer Mohamed Kheir MohamedDepartment of Anesthesia, Surgical ICU, and Pain Management, Faculty of Medicine, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt.
Cairo University · EG

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOverweight and obesity are growing public health concerns worldwide. Bariatric surgery is a modality of weight reduction; however, postoperative pain can increase the length of hospital stay, with all the associated consequences. While regional anesthesia is an available option, the feasibility of performing abdominal wall blocks on patients with obesity is questionable.

methodsSixty adult patients with a body mass index of 40-50 kg/m2 undergoing laparoscopic bariatric surgery were randomly assigned to receive either an ultrasound-guided transversus abdominis plane (TAP) or erector spinae plane (ESP) block. The primary outcome was the analgesic effect in the first 24 h postoperatively, assessed using the mean visual analog scale (VAS) score. Secondary outcomes were the time required for a successful block, incidence of complications, time to first rescue analgesia, time to flatus or stool passage, and total opioid consumption.

resultsThe mean VAS score during the first 24 h was higher with the TAP block than with the ESP block (2.78 ± 0.34 vs. 2.32 ± 0.12, P < 0.001). Additionally, the time to first rescue analgesia was greater with the ESP block (P = 0.001) and the time required for a successful block was higher with the TAP block (P = 0.001). However, the incidence of complications, total opioid consumption, and other secondary outcomes was similar between the groups.

conclusionsCompared with the TAP block, the bilateral ESP block is a more feasible and effective method for intra- and postoperative analgesia in patients undergoing laparoscopic bariatric surgery.

Indexed as

Bariatric SurgeryLaparoscopyNerve BlockAbdominal MusclesAdultAnalgesics, OpioidFeasibility StudiesHumansObesityUltrasonography, InterventionalAnalgesics, OpioidAnalgesiaAnesthesiaBariatric surgeryNerve blockOpioid analgesicsPain clinics.

Identifiers

PMID35581710
PMCPMC9726464
OpenAlexW4280518347

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.