Trial reportDrug design, development and therapy2025
Analgesic Efficacy of Thoracoscopic Direct-View Versus Ultrasound-Guided Thoracic Paravertebral Block in Multi-Port Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Lung Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Non-Inferiority Study.
Trial report in Drug design, development and therapy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Construction of a predictive model for prolonged length of stay in patients undergoing non-intubated thoracoscopic resection of lung cancer.Journal of thoracic disease · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This study compares the analgesic effects of the Thoracoscopic Direct-view Thoracic Paravertebral Nerve Block (DTPVB) with those of the Ultrasound-guided Thoracic Paravertebral Nerve Block (UTPVB), providing a clinical reference. Patients and Methods: Sixty-eight patients undergoing three-port video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) with general anesthesia were randomly assigned to either the DTPVB group (Group D, n = 34) or the UTPVB group (Group U, n = 34). Both groups received a 10 mL injection of 0.75% ropivacaine at the T4 and T7 interspaces. Primary outcomes were cumulative sufentanil equivalents from the start of lung manipulation to 24 hours postoperatively, with group differences assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 5 μg (Δ). Secondary outcomes include postoperative pain scores, analgesic consumption, patient satisfaction, adverse effects, and other related indicators. Results: The cumulative use of sufentanil equivalents from the start of lung manipulation to 24 hours postoperatively was 35.0 ± 6.1 μg in Group D and 33.2 ± 5.6 μg in Group U, with no significant difference (P = 0.217). The difference in cumulative sufentanil equivalents (Group D minus Group U) was 1.8 (95% CI -1.07, 4.65), within the non-inferiority margin of 5 (Δ). Postoperative pain scores, analgesic consumption, adverse effects, and complications were similar were similar between groups. However, DTPVB was associated with lower anxiety and higher satisfaction (P<0.001). At 15 minutes post-block, ropivacaine plasma concentrations were higher in Group D (P=0.024). Conclusion: DTPVB, via transmural pleural puncture, was non-inferior to UTPVB in analgesic efficacy from the beginning of the manipulation of the lungs in operation to 24h postoperatively. DTPVB provides a good alternative, especially for patients who are anxious before surgery, have difficulty cooperating with UTPVB, or in cases where UTPVB puncture fails. However, when using high concentrations of ropivacaine, greater vigilance for toxicity is required.
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.