ArticleBMC anesthesiology2023
Comparative retrospective review of perioperative analgesia using ultrasound-guided programmed intermittent erector spinae plane block for video-assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy.
Article in BMC anesthesiology, 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Retrolaminar versus erector spinae plane block for enhanced recovery after cesarean section: a retrospective study.Perioperative medicine (London, England) · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe retrospective cohort study was conducted to estimate the opioid-sparing anesthesia and limited side-effects with ultrasound (US)-guided ESPB using programmed intermittent bolus (PIB) or continuous infusion (CI) and standard opioid-based anesthesia in patients undergoing video-assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy (VATS).
methodsPatients underwent VATS were stratified into either control group or one of the two ESPB groups in a 1:2:2 ratio depending on whether PIB was implemented or not. The primary endpoint was intra- and post-operative opioids consumption over the first 48 h following surgery.
resultsA total of 180 cases were included in the analysis. Cumulative perioperative opioid administration was found to be significantly different between PIB, CI and control group (both p < 0.001), and between PIB and CI group (p = 0.028). More specifically, the mean was 305.30 ± 51.35 mg, 339.68 ± 56.07 mg and 468.91 ± 79.84 mg in PIB, CI and control group. NRS scores at rest across all postoperative times were comparable in two ESPB groups, while significantly lower than control group, however, scores during exercising at postoperative 3, 6, 12 h were significantly lower in PIB group as compared to CI group. A wider anesthetized dermatomes with PIB was observed at 6, 24 and 48 h as opposed to the CI. The mean of levobupivacaine plasma concentration was significantly lower for PIB at postoperative 0.5, 12, 24 and 48 h after initiation than CI. However, local anesthetic toxicity was not observed in any of the two ESPB groups.
conclusionsWhen US-guided ESPB using PIB was performed preoperatively, it contributed to the minimization of intra- and post-operative opioid consumption due to better analgesia with a wider anesthetic dermatome opposed to conventional CI, whereas, it was also associated with lower risk of local anesthetic toxicity because of lower plasma concentration of levobupivacaine.
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.