Trial reportEuropean archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery2024
Is transoral sphenopalatine ganglion blockade more effective on postoperative pain than endoscopic sphenopalatine ganglion blockade?
Trial report in European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effects of Sphenopalatine Ganglion Nerve Block on Bleeding and Pain During and After Septorhinoplasty: A Systemic Review and Meta-analysis.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Endoscopic transnasal sphenopalatine ganglion block for chronic craniofacial pain.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeIn this study, we aimed to examine and compare the effects of endoscopic SPGB and transoral SPGB on postoperative pain control and patient satisfaction in patients undergoing septoplasty.
methodsParticipants were randomly divided into three groups, no blockade (n:20), endoscopic SPGB (n:20), and transoral SPGB (n:20). Those who had no blockage were included in the control group. Demographic data of patients, such as age and sex, VAS (visual analogue scale) and postoperative pain scores (PPS) [determined at arrival in the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) and after 2, 6, 12, and 24 h], general analgesic use (24 and 168 h after surgery) and postoperative Quality of Recovery (QoR-15) values were recorded and compare them.
resultsThe PPS PACU of 2 h, 6 h, 12 h, and 24-h values of the transoral group were lower than the endoscopic and control groups (p < 0.001).The values of 24 h and 168 h of analgesic use in the transoral group were lower than in the control and endoscopic groups (p < 0.001).The average recovery QoR-15 scores at 12 h and 24 h differed according to the groups (p < 0.001) and the highest values were in the transoral group (p < 0.001).
conclusionTransoral SPGB is more effective in postoperative pain control than endoscopic SPGB, it decreases the use of postoperative analgesics and improves postoperative recovery scores.
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.