ArticleWorld neurosurgery: X2023
Ultrasonography guided erector spinae block in spinal surgery for pain management with enhanced recovery: A comparative study.
Article in World neurosurgery: X, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Analgesic efficacy of different volumes in erector spinae plane block in patients undergoing single level lumbar spine fixation: a non-inferiority randomized trial.BMC anesthesiology · 2025Article
- Letter to the editor regarding "Ultrasonography guided erector spinae block in spinal surgery forpain management with enhanced recovery".World neurosurgery: X · 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
10 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Improved and efficient management of pain can certainly aid enhanced recovery after spinal surgery. Our aim is to evaluate the effect of ESPB in thoracic and lumbar surgeries where we have evaluated VAS for pain, cumulative analgesics consumptions, length of hospital stay and post-operative complications. Methods: A cross-sectional comparative study done in HAMS among the erector spinae block group and control group. The analysis of different variable was done according to standard statistical analysis. For quantitative data, univariate and multivariate analysis was performed to determine statistically significant differences using student's t-test for continuous variables. Results: 60 patients were analyzed, 30 got spinae block and 30 in control group.The mean pain score for spinae block group were 1.90 ± 0.712 and 3.27 ± 1.230 for control group (p < 0.001). Cumulative mean analgesic consumption values for spinae block vs. control groups were 0.030 ± 0.042 mg vs. 0.091 ± 0.891 mg (p = 0.001) for fentanyl; 1.06E4 ± 2833.300 mg vs. 1.53E4 ± 2848.349 mg (p < 0.001) for paracetamol; 213 ± 64.656 mg vs. 494 ± 58.816 mg (p < 0.001) for ketorol; 5440.00 ± 2060.064 mg vs. 8667.50 ± 2275.006 mg (p < 0.001) for ibuprofen and 121.67 ± 31.303 mg vs. 185.00 ± 51.108 mg (p < 0.001) for tramadol. Conclusions: The ESPB technique shows early discharge from hospital and lower cumulative analgesics consumption which indicates enhanced recovery after spine surgery than control group. Improvement of pain using VAS shows immediate post-operative period recovery in those who receives spinae block.
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.