Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39747872›Full record

Trial reportScientific reports2025

Comparing C3, 4, and 5 nerve root block and interscalene with intermediate cervical plexus block in diaphragmatic motion for clavicle surgery.

Qi Li, Xiaoxiao Chen, Junde Han, Yaming Xie, Chentao Gu

Abstract readRandomized Controlled TrialComparative StudyPragmatic Clinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Qi Li *Department of Anesthesiology, Shanghai Sixth People's Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, No.600 Yishan Road, Xuhui District, Shanghai, 200233, People's Republic of China.
Xiaoxiao Chen *Department of Anesthesiology, Shanghai Sixth People's Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, No.600 Yishan Road, Xuhui District, Shanghai, 200233, People's Republic of China.
Junde Han *Department of Anesthesiology, Shanghai Sixth People's Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, No.600 Yishan Road, Xuhui District, Shanghai, 200233, People's Republic of China.
Yaming Xie *Department of Anesthesiology, Shanghai Sixth People's Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, No.600 Yishan Road, Xuhui District, Shanghai, 200233, People's Republic of China.
Chentao GuDepartment of Anesthesiology, Shanghai Sixth People's Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, No.600 Yishan Road, Xuhui District, Shanghai, 200233, People's Republic of China. fuchaojian@baosteel.com.

Funding

Shanghai Sixth People's Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine NO. ynts202005Shanghai Sixth People's Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine NO. ynts202304
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Regional anesthesia is a popular method for surgical anesthesia in clavicular surgery. Selective blocking of the cervical 3, 4, and 5 nerve roots shows promise in clavicle surgery, with its fast onset, good anesthesia and less complications, necessitating evaluation of its impact on diaphragmatic function. The purpose of this study is to examine the safety of C3, 4, and 5 nerve root block for its application in clavicle surgery. We conducted a pragmatic, randomized trial to evaluate the effect of C3, 4, and 5 nerve root block as compared with interscalene with intermediate cervical plexus block in diaphragmatic motion. This study involved forty patients undergoing right clavicle surgery. Patients were assigned in a 1:1 ratio to either a C345 nerve root block (administered with 2, 3, and 5 ml of 0.5% ropivacaine) or an interscalene with intermediate cervical plexus block (ISB + ICPB, each receiving 10 ml of 0.5% ropivacaine). Diaphragmatic kinetics were quantitatively assessed using sonographic techniques. The primary outcome was the incidence of complete hemi-diaphragmatic paralysis, observed at 30 min post-blockade. Secondary outcomes included the rate of complete hemi-diaphragmatic paralysis at 15 min and the degree of diaphragmatic motion restoration at 2, 4, 6, and 8 h post-blockade, onset time of block, motor block score in upper extremity, and adverse events. Results showed that only one patient (5%) in the C345 group vs. fifteen (75%) in the ISB + ICPB group experienced complete hemi-diaphragmatic paralysis at 30 min during deep breathing (P = 0.001). No patients in the C345 group, compared to five (25%) in the ISB + ICPB group exhibited paradoxical movement at 30 min during voluntary sniffing (P = 0.0471). Additionally, the C345 group demonstrated significantly greater diaphragmatic motion and upper limb strength restoration at all measured intervals post-blockade. Moreover, faster onset time and less adverse events were observed in the C345 group vs. in the ISB + ICPB group. Benefit from low volume of local anesthetics, the C345 nerve root block not only significantly reduces the incidence of complete hemi-diaphragmatic paralysis but also facilitates better recovery from diaphragmatic paralysis compared to the ISB + ICPB. It can be inferred that C345 is a more beneficial anesthesia method for early recovery of clavicular patients.Trial registration number: ChiCTR2300078283 04/12/2023.

Indexed as

ClavicleDiaphragmAdultAnesthetics, LocalCervical PlexusCervical Plexus BlockFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNerve BlockRopivacaineAnesthetics, LocalRopivacaineC3, 4, and 5 nerve root blockClavicleDiaphragmatic paralysisIntermediate cervical plexus blockInterscalene

Identifiers

PMID39747872
PMCPMC11697284

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.