ReviewPain and therapy2025
Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis of Postoperative Analgesic Techniques in Thoracoscopic Lung Resection Patients.
Review in Pain and therapy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Dexamethasone as an adjuvant to continuous erector spinae plane block for postoperative analgesia after video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery for pulmonary nodule surgery: a randomized controlled trial.Annals of medicine · 2026Trial
- Application of erector spinae plane block and thoracic paravertebral block in thoracoscopic lobectomy.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Trial
- Flurbiprofen Axetil Combined with Ultrasound-Guided Intercostal Nerve Block for Preoperative Analgesia in Patients with Traumatic Multiple Rib Fractures: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Pain and therapy · 2026Article
- Continuous Erector Spinae Plane Block versus Thoracic Epidural Analgesia After Thoracotomy: A Randomized Controlled Assessor-Blinded Non-Inferiority Trial.Journal of pain research · 2026Article
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
Abstract
introductionPostoperative analgesia in thoracoscopic lung resection is crucial, with several nerve block techniques-including thoracic epidural anesthesia (TEA), paravertebral block (PVB), erector spinae plane block (ESPB), intercostal nerve block (INB), and serratus anterior plane block (SAPB)-commonly employed. However, there remains ongoing debate regarding the optimal technique.
methodsTo evaluate and compare the effectiveness of these analgesia methods, a systematic review was conducted across multiple databases, including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library, identifying relevant randomized clinical trials (RCTs). A Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed to assess postoperative pain management, with subgroup analyses and meta-regression conducted to examine key factors influencing outcomes, such as the risk of bias, continuous catheter analgesia, and patient-controlled analgesia (PCA).
resultsThe results revealed that for 12-h resting visual analog scale (VAS) scores, the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) ranking was TEA > PVB > ESPB > control > INB > SAPB, whereas at 24 h, it shifted to PVB > TEA > ESPB > INB > control > SAPB. For 12-h coughing VAS scores, TEA ranked highest, followed by PVB, SAPB, ESPB, and control. At 24 h, PVB ranked highest, followed by TEA, ESPB, SAPB, INB, and control. The inconsistency test showed good consistency, with minimal publication bias, and meta-regression revealed that neither study quality nor local anesthetic infiltration at the incision site significantly impacted the outcomes. Excluding studies without PCA did not change the SUCRA rankings. PVB consistently ranked highest for 24-h resting and coughing VAS scores. Clustered ranking plots indicated that PVB and ESPB were the most suitable techniques for postoperative analgesia.
conclusionPVB and ESPB emerged as the most suitable analgesic techniques for thoracoscopic lung resection. While PVB showed superior analgesic efficacy, ESPB offered fewer side effects, providing a safety advantage. TEA was considered less suitable due to its excessive side effects.
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.