ArticleCardiovascular and interventional radiology2024
A Comparative Analysis of Erector Spinae Plane Block Versus Conscious Sedation in Managing Percutaneous Cholecystostomy Pain.
Article in Cardiovascular and interventional radiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Erector Spinae Plane Block for Percutaneous Transhepatic Biliary Drainage: A Comparative Analysis.Cardiovascular and interventional radiology · 2025Article
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 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study investigates the efficacy of erector spinae plane block (ESPB) for managing perioperative and postoperative pain in patients undergoing percutaneous cholecystostomy (PC) for acute cholecystitis, particularly in high-risk elderly patients with extensive comorbidities and limited functional status.
methodsIn a retrospective single-center study, 58 high-risk patients scheduled for PC were assessed. ESPB was administered to 23 patients, while 22 received conscious sedation. Pain intensity was measured using the numeric rating scale before any analgesic or ESPB administration, during the procedure and at 1 and 12 h post-procedure and secondary outcomes included adverse effects and additional analgesic requirements.
resultsThe ESPB group experienced significant pain reduction during and post-procedure compared to the conscious sedation group (p = 0.002). Procedure times were shorter (p = 0.015), and postoperative tramadol was less frequently needed in the ESPB group (p = 0.007). The incidence of nausea was also lower in the ESPB group (p = 0.001). No ESPB-related complications were reported.
conclusionESPB significantly alleviates perioperative and postoperative pain in PC patients, reducing additional analgesic use and side effects. It holds promise as a key component of pain management for high-risk surgical patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 3, Non-randomized controlled cohort/follow-up study.
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.