SynthesisEuropean journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie2024
Supraclavicular versus infraclavicular brachial plexus block in upper limb orthopaedic surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
Synthesis in European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie, 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.
- [Peripheral regional anesthesia and analgesia: "the magnificent seven" for training].Die Anaesthesiologie · 2026Review
- Costoclavicular Brachial Plexus Block for Upper Limb Procedures: A Narrative Review of Efficacy and Safety.Cureus · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundClavicular brachial plexus blocks are a popular method to provide analgesia in upper limb surgery. Two common approaches include the infraclavicular (IC) and supraclavicular (SC) blocks. These two techniques have been compared previously; however, it is still being determined from the current literature whether one should be favoured.
methodsA search was performed on the following databases: Ovid Medline, EMBASE and the Web of Science from inception until 30.04.2023. All RCTs comparing SC and IC approaches in upper limb orthopaedic surgery were included. The primary outcome was block success rate.
resultsEighteen RCTs comprising 1389 patients were included. The success rate of IC blocks was higher than SC blocks, odds ratio 0.61 (95% CI 0.41-0.91, p = 0.01). A small number of studies reported on secondary outcomes. A reduced rate of Horner's syndrome was observed in the IC group. Otherwise, no difference was noted between the approaches in terms of procedure time, sensory onset time, patient satisfaction, pain and vascular puncture.
conclusionIC blocks demonstrate a higher success rate over SC blocks. Across all studies a large variance in outcome reporting and definitions was observed. Future studies should conform to an agreed definition set to facilitate comparison.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39287814What 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.