ArticleBMJ open2023
Effect of rectus sheath anaesthesia versus thoracic epidural analgesia on postoperative recovery quality after elective open abdominal surgery in a French regional hospital: the study protocol of a randomised controlled QoR-RECT-CATH trial.
Article in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04985695 (Influence of Analgesic Technique on Post Operative Rehabilitation After Median Laparotomy), which is not on this 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.
Influence of Analgesic Technique on Post Operative Rehabilitation After Median Laparotomy: Comparison Between Thoracic Epidural Anesthesia Versus Bilateral Rectus Sheath Block
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- The role of the rectus sheath block in modern perioperative care for midline laparotomy: a review of the evidence.Frontiers in anesthesiology · 2026Article
- Enhancing postoperative pain control by surgically-initiated rectus sheath block in abdominal aortic aneurysm open repair: A case report.World journal of clinical cases · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionEnhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols increase patient well-being while significantly reducing mortality, costs and length-of-stay after surgery. A key component is multimodal analgesia that prevents postoperative pain and facilitates early refeeding and mobilisation. Thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA) was long the gold standard for locoregional anaesthesia in anterior abdominal wall surgery. However, newer wall-block techniques such as rectus-sheath block (RSB) may be preferable because they are less invasive and may provide equivalent analgesia with fewer side effects. Since the evidence base remains limited, the Quality Of Recovery enhanced by REctus sheat CATHeter (QoR-RECT-CATH) randomised controlled trial (RCT) was designed to assess whether RSB elicits better postoperative rehabilitation than TEA after laparotomy. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This open-label parallel-arm 1:1-allocated RCT will determine whether RSB is superior to TEA in 110 patients undergoing scheduled midline laparotomy in terms of postoperative rehabilitation quality. The setting is a regional French hospital that provides opioid-free anaesthesia for all laparotomies within an ERAS programme. Recruited patients will be ≥18 years, scheduled to undergo laparotomy, have American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score 1-4 and lack contraindications to ropivacaine/TEA. TEA-allocated patients will receive an epidural catheter before surgery while RSB-allocated patients will receive rectus sheath catheters after surgery. All other pre/peri/postoperative procedures will be identical, including multimodal postoperative analgesia provided according to our standard of care. Primary objective is a change in total Quality-of-Recovery-15 French-language (QoR-15F) score on postoperative day (POD) 2 relative to baseline. QoR-15F is a patient-reported outcome measure that is commonly used to measure ERAS outcomes. The 15 secondary objectives include postoperative pain scores, opioid consumption, functional recovery measures and adverse events. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The French Ethics Committee (Sud-Ouest et Outre-Mer I Ethical Committee) gave approval. Subjects are recruited after providing written consent after receiving the information provided by the investigator. The results of this study will be made public through peer-reviewed publication and, if possible, conference publications. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04985695.
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.