SynthesisAnnals of cardiac anaesthesia2024
Effectiveness of Erector Spinae Plane Block as Perioperative Analgesia in Midline Sternotomies: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Synthesis in Annals of cardiac anaesthesia, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Analgesic efficacy and safety of erector spinae plane block versus serratus anterior plane block in breast surgery-a meta-analysis and systematic review of randomized controlled trials.Journal of anesthesia, analgesia and critical care · 2024Review
- Is It Time to Embrace the Erector Spinae Plane Block (ESP) for Cardiac Surgery?Annals of cardiac anaesthesia · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
abstractWith the advancements in regional anesthesia and ultrasound techniques, the use of non-neuraxial blocks like the erector spinae plane block (ESPB) has been increasing in cardiac surgeries with promising outcomes. A total of 3,264 articles were identified through a literature search. Intervention was defined as ESPB. Comparators were no regional technique performed or sham blocks. Four studies with a total of 226 patients were included. Postoperative opioid consumption was lower in the group that received ESPB than the group that did not (weighted mean difference [WMD]: -204.08; 95% CI: -239.98 to -168.19; P < 0.00001). Intraoperative opioid consumption did not differ between the two groups (WMD: -398.14; 95% CI: -812.17 to 15.98; P = 0.06). Pain scores at 0 hours were lower in the group that received ESPB than the group that did not (WMD: -1.27; 95% CI: -1.99 to -0.56; P = 0.0005). Pain scores did not differ between the two groups at 4-6 hours (WMD: -0.79; 95% CI: -1.70 to 0.13; P = 0.09) and 12 hours (WMD: -0.83; 95% CI: -1.82 to 0.16; P = 0.10). Duration of mechanical ventilation in minutes was lower in the group that received ESPB than the group that did not (WMD: -45.12; 95% CI: -68.82 to -21.43; P = 0.0002). Given the limited number of studies and the substantial heterogeneity of measured outcomes and interventions, further studies are required to assess the benefit of ESPB in midline sternotomies.
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.