ArticleJSES international2024
Complication rates and efficacy of single-injection vs. continuous interscalene nerve block: a prospective evaluation following arthroscopic primary rotator cuff repair without a concomitant open procedure.
Article in JSES international, 2024. 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.
- Post-operative pain control in arthroscopic rotator cuff repairs: a prospective, double-blinded, randomized controlled trial comparing interscalene catheters and single-shot blocks.JSES international · 2026Article
- An update on regional anesthesia in shoulder surgery: a narrative review.Annals of joint · 2025Review
- Review
- Practical Considerations for Liposomal Bupivacaine Use in Orthopaedic Surgery: A Clinical and Economic Analysis.JB & JS open accessReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: To compare the complications and efficacy of pain relief of the interscalene anesthetic block using either a single-injection (SI) vs. a continuous, indwelling catheter (CIC) for arthroscopic rotator cuff repair surgery. Methods: Patients undergoing primary, arthroscopic rotator cuff repair without concomitant open procedure or biceps tenodesis were prospectively enrolled by 4 fellowship-trained sports medicine and shoulder surgeons. Patients received either a SI or CIC preoperatively based on surgeon preference. Patients were contacted by phone to complete a standard questionnaire on postoperative days (PODs) 1, 3, 7, 14, and 28. Patients were asked to rate the efficacy of their subjective pain relief (scale of 0-10), document issues with the catheter, describe analgesic usage, and report pharmacological and medical complications. The primary outcome was measured as complication rate. Postoperative narcotic use, patient satisfaction, and visual analog scale pain scores were measured as secondary outcomes. Results: Seventy patients were enrolled, 33 CIC patients (13 male, 20 female, mean age 61 ± 8 years) and 37 SI patients (20 male, 17 female, mean age 59 ± 10 years). There were significantly more injection/insertion site complications in the CIC group (48%) vs. the SI group (11%, Conclusion: CIC interscalene nerve blocks had an increased risk for injection site complications and minor complications in the immediate postoperative period when using the CIC for arthroscopic rotator cuff repair without any concomitant open procedures. CIC blocks demonstrated clinically significant superior pain relief on POD 1 but were equal to SI blocks at every time point thereafter. Superior pain relief of CIC at POD 28 was not clinically significant. CIC catheters do not appear to markedly decrease the use of postoperative narcotics. Despite this trend in complication rates and pain scores, all patients in both groups were satisfied with their nerve block.
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.