Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38326498›Full record

Trial reportAesthetic plastic surgery2024

Comparing the Analgesic Effects Between the Pre- and Post-costal Cartilage Harvest Cohorts Using Ultrasound-Guided Deep Serratus Anterior Plane Block in Children with Microtia Undergoing Auricular Reconstruction: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Guihua Xiang, Chunmei Chen, Keyu Chen, Quanle Liu, Xiaole Sun, Yan Huang, Lan Huang, Jing Jin, Jiantao Shang, Dong Yang

Abstract readRandomized Controlled TrialComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
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

10 authors.

Guihua Xiang *Department of Anesthesiology, Plastic Surgery Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, No. 33, Ba Da Chu Road, Shi Jing Shan, Beijing, 100144, China.
Chunmei Chen *Department of Anesthesiology, Plastic Surgery Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, No. 33, Ba Da Chu Road, Shi Jing Shan, Beijing, 100144, China.
Keyu ChenDepartment of Anesthesiology, Plastic Surgery Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, No. 33, Ba Da Chu Road, Shi Jing Shan, Beijing, 100144, China.
Quanle LiuDepartment of Anesthesiology, Plastic Surgery Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, No. 33, Ba Da Chu Road, Shi Jing Shan, Beijing, 100144, China.
Xiaole SunDepartment of Gynecology, Peking University Third Hospital, No. 49, Huayuan North Road, Haidian District, Beijing, 100144, China.
Yan HuangDepartment of Nursing, Plastic Surgery Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, No. 33, Ba Da Chu Road, Shi Jing Shan, Beijing, 100144, China.
Lan HuangDepartment of Nursing, Plastic Surgery Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, No. 33, Ba Da Chu Road, Shi Jing Shan, Beijing, 100144, China.
Jing JinDepartment of Nursing, Plastic Surgery Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, No. 33, Ba Da Chu Road, Shi Jing Shan, Beijing, 100144, China.
Jiantao ShangDepartment of Nursing, Plastic Surgery Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, No. 33, Ba Da Chu Road, Shi Jing Shan, Beijing, 100144, China.
Dong YangDepartment of Anesthesiology, Plastic Surgery Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, No. 33, Ba Da Chu Road, Shi Jing Shan, Beijing, 100144, China. yangdongmazui@163.com.ORCID 0000-0002-6558-6343

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposePain following costal cartilage harvest surgery is the most common complaint of auricular reconstruction (AR). Anesthesiologists are continuously searching for an effective postoperative pain control method.

methodsThis study was conducted from 10 April 2022 to 10 June 2022. Sixty children undergoing AR using costal cartilage were randomly assigned to either a serratus anterior plane block performed before costal cartilage harvest (SAPB-pre-cohort; n = 30) or the SAPB-post-cohort (Post-costal cartilage Harvest Cohort: n = 30). The primary endpoint measures were the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) scores of the chest and ear pain degrees recorded at 1-, 6-, 12-, 24-, and 48-h after surgery. Intraoperative anesthetic and analgesic dosages, sufentanil consumption and rescue analgesia consumption during the first 24 h post-operation, cough score during extubation, extubation agitation score, length of stay, the extubation time, first ambulatory time, analgesia duration, and opioid-related adverse effects and SAPB-related adverse effects were the secondary endpoints.

resultsThe rest and coughing NRS scores were significantly reduced in the SAPB-pre-cohort 6 and 12 h post-operation in comparison with the SAPB-post-cohort (rest 6 h p = 0.002, others p < 0.001). No significant difference in the NRS ear scores existed between the two cohorts (p > 0.05). The use of propofol and remifentanil for general anesthesia during the SAPB-pre-procedure was significantly reduced compared to the SAPB-post-group, with statistical significance (p < 0.001). Sufentanil consumption and rescue analgesia consumption were significantly reduced in the SAPB-pre-cohort (p = 0.001, p = 0.033). The extubation time and first ambulatory time were markedly shorter in the SAPB-pre-cohort (all p < 0.001). Analgesia duration was markedly longer in the SAPB-pre-cohort (p < 0.001). No significant differences were noted in the cough score during extubation, extubation agitation score, length of stay between the two cohorts (all p > 0.05). Opioid-related adverse effects occurred more in the SAPB-post-cohort, while there was no statistical significance (16.7 vs. 36.7%; p = 0.082). There were no blockade-related complications observed in either cohort.

conclusionThe analgesic effect of the SAPB-pre-cohort was better than the SAPB-post-cohort suggesting both efficacy and feasibility of preemptive analgesia. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE II: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Indexed as

Congenital MicrotiaCostal CartilageNerve BlockPlastic Surgery ProceduresPostoperative PainUltrasonography, InterventionalAdolescentChildCohort StudiesFemaleHumansMalePain MeasurementCostal cartilageMicrotiaPostoperative analgesiaPreemptive analgesiaSerratus anterior plane block (SAPB)

Identifiers

PMID38326498

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.