Trial reportBMC anesthesiology2024
The analgesic effect of ultrasound-guided cervical erector spinae block in arthroscopic shoulder surgery: a randomized controlled clinical trial.
Trial report in BMC anesthesiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Analgesic efficacy of erector spinae plane block for managing pain in arthroscopic shoulder surgery: a systemic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Erector spinae plane block reduces postoperative nausea and vomiting: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 44 randomized trials.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Impact on analgesia, diaphragmatic function, and recovery between erector spinae plane block versus superior trunk block in arthroscopic shoulder surgery: a randomized controlled trial.Annals of medicine · 2026Trial
- Cervical Erector Spinae Plane Block for Shoulder Arthroscopy: A Favorable Alternative to Interscalene Brachial Plexus Block? A Randomized Non-Inferiority Trial.Pain and therapy · 2026Article
- Evaluating the Efficacy of Cervical Erector Spinae Plane Block Using Ultrasound Versus Fluoroscopic Guidance for Cervical Pain: A Case Series.Anesthesiology and pain medicine · 2025Article
- Recent Advances and Perspectives in Anesthesiology: Towards Artificial Intelligence-Based Applications.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundErector spinae plane block (ESPB) is a novel fascial plane block technique that can provide effective perioperative analgesia for thoracic, abdominal and lumbar surgeries. However, the effect of cervical ESPB on postoperative analgesia after arthroscopic shoulder surgery is unknown. The aim of this study is to investigate the analgesic effect and safety of ultrasound-guided cervical ESPB in arthroscopic shoulder surgery.
methodsSeventy patients undergoing arthroscopy shoulder surgery were randomly assigned to one of two groups: ESPB group (n = 35) or control group (n = 35). Patients in the ESPB group received an ultrasound-guided ESPB at the C7 level with 30 mL of 0.25% ropivacaine 30 min before induction of general anesthesia, whereas patients in the control group received no block. The primary outcome measures were the static visual analogue scale (VAS) pain scores at 4, 12, and 24 h after surgery. Secondary outcomes included heart rate (HR) and mean arterial pressure (MAP) before anesthesia (t1), 5 min after anesthesia (t2), 10 min after skin incision (t3), and 10 min after extubation (t4); intraoperative remifentanil consumption; the Bruggrmann comfort scale (BCS) score, quality of recovery-15 (QoR-15) scale score and the number of patients who required rescue analgesia 24 h after surgery; and adverse events.
resultsThe static VAS scores at 4, 12 and 24 h after surgery were significantly lower in the ESPB group than those in the control group (2.17 ± 0.71 vs. 3.14 ± 1.19, 1.77 ± 0.77 vs. 2.63 ± 0.84, 0.74 ± 0.66 vs. 1.14 ± 0.88, all P < 0.05). There were no significant differences in HR or MAP at any time point during the perioperative period between the two groups (all P > 0.05). The intraoperative consumption of remifentanil was significantly less in the ESPB group compared to the control group (P < 0.05). The scores of BCS and QoR-15 scale were higher in the ESPB group 24 h after surgery than those in the control group (P < 0.05). Compared to the control group, fewer patients in the ESPB group required rescue analgesia 24 h after surgery (P < 0.05). No serious complications occurred in either group.
conclusionsUltrasound-guided cervical ESPB can provide effective postoperative analgesia following arthroscopic shoulder surgery, resulting in a better postoperative recovery with fewer complications.
trial registrationChictr.org.cn identifier ChiCTR2300070731 (Date of registry: 21/04/2023, prospectively registered).
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.