ArticleSaudi journal of anaesthesia
The analgesic efficacy of ultrasound-guided erector spinae plane block versus ultrasound-guided caudal epidural block for abdominal surgery in pediatric patients - A patient and assessor-blind, randomized controlled study.
Article in Saudi journal of anaesthesia. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Erector Spinae Plane Block for Pain Management in Pediatric Urologic Surgeries: A Narrative Review.Current pain and headache reports · 2026Review
- Efficacy of erector spinae plane block versus caudal block for postoperative analgesia in paediatric surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2025Article
- Erector Spinae Plane Block Versus Caudal Block in Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Cureus · 2025Review
- Response to Letter to the Editor: "Erector spinae plane block versus caudal block in children: similar analgesia, different stories beneath the surface".Brazilian journal of anesthesiology (Elsevier)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
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Literature on the efficacy and safety of erector spinae plane block (ESPB) in pediatric patients is limited. Hence, we aimed to compare ESPB versus caudal epidural block (CEB) in children undergoing abdominal surgery. Methods: In this patient and assessor-blind study, fifty-two ASA I-II patients, between 1 to 9 years of age, were randomized into groups of 26 each. ESPB group received unilateral or bilateral ultrasound (USG)-guided ESPB with 0.5 ml/kg of 0.25% bupivacaine per side. CEB group received USG-guided CEB with 1 ml/kg of 0.25% bupivacaine. The primary objective was to estimate the proportion of patients requiring postoperative rescue analgesia. The secondary objectives were to assess postoperative Face, Legs, Activity, Cry and Consolability (FLACC) scale scores, duration of analgesia, and consumption of rescue analgesic drugs. Results: More patients in the ESPB group (88.4%), compared to the CEB group (42.3%), required rescue analgesics ( Conclusion: In children undergoing abdominal surgery, both ESPB and CEB were safe and efficacious. CEB provided a longer duration and better quality of analgesia. ESPB may be considered when CEB is contraindicated or difficult.
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.