Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38041029›Full record

Trial reportBMC anesthesiology2023

Comparison of erector spinae plane block and serratus anterior plane block for postoperative analgesia in uniportal thoracoscopic lobectomy: a randomized controlled trial.

Wei Wu, Huan Xu, Xue Chen, Wenxin He, Hong Shi

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC anesthesiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.4field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Fascial plane blocks: Will they flourish or perish with time?Journal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacology
    Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Wei Wu *Department of Anesthesiology, Shanghai Pulmonary Hospital, School of Medicine, Tongji University, Shanghai, 200433, China.
Huan Xu *Department of Anesthesiology, Shanghai Pulmonary Hospital, School of Medicine, Tongji University, Shanghai, 200433, China.
Xue ChenDepartment of Anesthesiology, Shanghai Pulmonary Hospital, School of Medicine, Tongji University, Shanghai, 200433, China.
Wenxin HeDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Shanghai Pulmonary Hospital, School of Medicine, Tongji University, Shanghai, 200433, China. 0wenxinhe@tongji.edu.cn.
Hong ShiDepartment of Anesthesiology, Shanghai Pulmonary Hospital, School of Medicine, Tongji University, Shanghai, 200433, China. 13651958255@139.com.
Shanghai Pulmonary Hospital · CNTongji University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPostoperative pain remains a significant concern following uniportal thoracoscopic surgery. The analgesic efficacy of erector spinae plane block (ESPB) and serratus anterior plane block (SAPB) in terms of postoperative opioid consumption in uniportal thoracoscopic surgery still needs further studies.

methodsA randomized controlled trial was conducted, enrolling 150 patients who underwent uniportal thoracoscopic lobectomy. The patients were randomly allocated to three groups in a 1:1:1 ratio: the ESPB group (administered 20 ml of 0.5% ropivacaine), the SAPB group (administered 20 ml of 0.5% ropivacaine), and the standard care (control) group. The primary endpoint was the consumption of sufentanil during the first 24 h following surgery. Secondary endpoints assessed the area under the curve (AUC) of pain numerical rating scale (NRS) scores, occurrence of moderate to severe pain, time to initial sufentanil request, and postoperative adverse events.

resultsNo significant difference was observed in the consumption of sufentanil during the first 24 h following surgery between the ESPB and SAPB groups (adjusted difference, 1.53 [95% CI, -5.15 to 2.08]). However, in comparison to the control group, both intervention groups demonstrated a significant decrease in sufentanil consumption, with adjusted differences of -9.97 [95% CI, -13.10 to -6.84] for the ESPB group and -12.55 [95% CI, -15.63 to -9.47] for the SAPB group. There were no significant differences in AUC of NRS scores during rest and movement between the ESPB and SAPB groups, with adjusted differences of -7.10 [95% CI, 1.33 to -15.55] for the rest condition and 5.61 [95% CI, -13.23 to 2.01] for the movement condition. At 6 h postoperatively, there were fewer patients with moderate to severe pain in the ESPB group compared with those in the SAPB group (adjusted difference, -1.37% [95% CI, -2.29% to -0.45%]. The time to first sufentanil request significantly differed among the three groups (ESPB vs Control P < 0.01, SAPB vs Control P < 0.01, ESPB vs SAPB P = 0.015).

conclusionsIn patients undergoing uniportal thoracoscopic lobectomy, although the differences between the two groups are not statistically significant, both the ESPB and SAPB demonstrate effective reduction in postoperative opioid consumption and the need for rescue analgesics compared to the control group. Moreover, the ESPB group experienced a significantly lower incidence of moderate to severe pain at 6 h postoperatively compared to the SAPB group.

trial registrationThe study was registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (registration No: ChiCTR1900021695, Date of registration: March 5th, 2019).

Indexed as

AnalgesiaNerve BlockAnalgesics, OpioidHumansPostoperative PainRopivacaineSufentanilUltrasonography, InterventionalAnalgesics, OpioidRopivacaineSufentanilErector spinae plane blockPostoperative painSerratus anterior plane blockUniportal thoracoscopic surgery

Identifiers

PMID38041029
PMCPMC10691001
OpenAlexW4389239403

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.