Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39958313›Full record

ReviewSaudi journal of anaesthesia

Erector spinae plane block in Caesarean sections: A scoping review.

Kieran Brosnan, Mary Moore, Aisling Ní Eochagáin

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Saudi journal of anaesthesia. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Kieran BrosnanDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Rotunda Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.
Mary MooreDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Rotunda Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.
Aisling Ní EochagáinDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Rotunda Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Pain management for Caesarean section focuses on multimodal analgesia with a growing interest in the use of regional techniques. Currently, there is no gold standard peripheral regional analgesia technique for Caesarean section. The Erector Spinae Plane Block is a relatively new fascial plane block that may be used to provide analgesia for numerous surgical procedures of the trunk. In recent years it is the fascial plane block that has accumulated the most enthusiasm and debate. Its use in Caesarean section has grown over the past three years. Objective: To determine the scope of literature published on ESPB in Caesarean sections and to identify deficits in the literature to guide future research. Methodology: This study was conducted using Arksey and O'Malley's framework for scoping reviews. This included a search of four databases searching for articles published between 2016 and 2022. Studies involving patients receiving ESPB as part of an analgesic strategy after a Caesarean section were included. Findings: Sixteen articles were included for final review. The most common primary outcomes measured were postoperative pain scores and analgesia consumption. Six ESPB studies recorded a statistically significant reduction in pain scores while three studies described a statistically significant reduction in postoperative analgesia consumption. Conclusion: The use of ESPB for Caesarean section is gaining momentum however insufficient evidence currently exists to support its widespread use. Further research is required to evaluate the potential benefits of ESPB in specific patient cohorts and in terms of its efficacy about multidimensional patient-centric outcomes.

Indexed as

Caesarean sectionerector spinae plane blockfascial plane blockobstetric anaesthesiaregional anaesthesia

Identifiers

PMID39958313
PMCPMC11829696

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.