ReviewAesthetic plastic surgery2023
Comparison of Performance Characteristics and Efficacy of Bilateral Thoracic Paravertebral Blocks in Obese and Non-Obese Patients Undergoing Reduction Mammaplasty Surgery: A Historical Cohort Study.
Review in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04596787 (The Performance Properties and Efficacy of Ultrasound-Guided Bilateral Thoracic Paravertebral Blocks in Obese and Non-obese Patients Undergoing Reduction Mammaplasty), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 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.
The Performance Properties and Efficacy of Ultrasound-Guided Bilateral Thoracic Paravertebral Blocks in Obese and Non-obese Patients Undergoing Reduction Mammaplasty: A Historical Cohort Study
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trial
- Single and double injection paravertebral block comparison in reduction mammaplasty cases: a randomized controlled study.Anesthesia and pain medicine · 2023Article
- The effect of body mass index on thoracic paravertebral block analgesia after video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery; a prospective interventional study.BMC anesthesiology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough ultrasound (US)-guided regional anesthesia techniques are advantageous in the management of obese patients; the procedures can still be associated with technical difficulties and greater failure rates. The aim of this study is to compare the performance properties and analgesic efficacy of US-guided bilateral thoracic paravertebral blocks (TPVBs) in obese and non-obese patients.
methodsData of 82 patients, who underwent bilateral reduction mammaplasty under general anesthesia with adjunctive TPVB analgesia between December 2016 and February 2020, were reviewed. Patients were allocated into two groups with respect to their BMI scores (Group NO: BMI < 30 and Group O: BMI ≥ 30). Demographics, ideal US visualization time, total bilateral TPVB procedure time, needle tip visualization and performance difficulties, number of needle maneuvers, surgical, anesthetic and analgesic follow-up parameters, incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), sleep duration, length of postanesthesia care unit (PACU) and hospital stay, and patient/surgeon satisfaction scores were investigated.
resultsSeventy-nine patients' data were complete. Ideal US visualization and total TPVB performance times were shorter, number of needle maneuvers were fewer and length of PACU stay was shorter in Group NO (p < 0.05). Postoperative pain scores were generally similar within first 24 h (p > 0.05). Time to postoperative pain, total analgesic requirements, incidence of PONV, sleep duration, length of hospital stay were comparable (p > 0.05). Satisfaction was slightly higher in Group NO (p < 0.05).
conclusionsUS-guided TPVB performances in obese patients might be more challenging and take longer time. However, it is still successful providing good acute pain control in patients undergoing reduction mammaplasty surgeries. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .
trial registrationNCT04596787.
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.