Trial reportEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2024
Postoperative quality of recovery with erector spinae plane block or thoracolumbar interfascial plane block after major spinal surgery: a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society, 2024. 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.
- Comparison of efficacy of ultrasound-guided erector spinae plane block versus thoracolumbar interfascial plane block in patients undergoing lumbar spine surgeries: A systematic review and trial sequential meta-analysis.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2024Article
- Ultrasound‑guided erector spinae plane block in posterior lumbar surgery (Review).Biomedical reports · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeMajor spinal surgery causes severe postoperative pain. The present randomized, controlled, prospective study tested the short- and long-term effects of thoracolumbar interfascial and erector spinae plane blocks on patient-centered outcomes for major lumbar spinal surgery.
methodsSixty adult patients were randomly assigned to receive either bilateral thoracolumbar interfascial plane or erector spinae plane block after anesthesia induction using bupivacaine 0.25%, 20 mL. The primary outcome of this study was the Quality of Recovery-40 score in the postoperative 24th hour. Secondary outcomes were Comprehensive Complication Index scores, postoperative pain scores, opioid consumption, first rescue analgesic administration time, and complication incidence.
resultsThe recovery scores of both blocks at the postoperative 24th hour were similar, with a median thoracolumbar interfascial plane block of 178 (IQR 173-180) and an erector spinae plane block of 175 (IQR 168.7-182) (p = 0.717). Thoracolumbar interfascial plane block reduced area under the curve pain with movement over 24 h compared with erector spinae plane block (p = 0.024). The pain scores between the groups were similar at all time points (p > 0.05), except the 24th hour with movement in the thoracolumbar interfascial plane block compared with the erector spinae plane block [median 3 (IQR 2-4)] vs. 4 (IQR 3-5), respectively] (p = 0.019). No differences were recorded between the block groups regarding postoperative 24th-h oxycodone consumption, time to first opioid intake, and complication incidence (p > 0.05).
conclusionsBoth blocks resulted in similar quality of recovery in the postoperative 24-h period in major spinal surgery and were effective in terms of analgesia.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37889327What 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.