Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40175641›Full record

SynthesisEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2025

Impact of erector spinae plane block on postoperative recovery quality in spinal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Longyi Zhang, Xuelei Zhou, Linlin Chen, Xianchun Liu, Wei Mao, Li Zhao, Linji Li, Ying Xie

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

8 authors.

Longyi ZhangThe Second Clinical Medical College, North Sichuan Medical College, Beijing Anzhen Nanchong Hospital, Capital Medical University & Nanchong Central Hospital, Nanchong City, Sichuan Province, China.
Xuelei ZhouThe Second Clinical Medical College, North Sichuan Medical College, Beijing Anzhen Nanchong Hospital, Capital Medical University & Nanchong Central Hospital, Nanchong City, Sichuan Province, China.
Linlin ChenThe Second Clinical Medical College, North Sichuan Medical College, Beijing Anzhen Nanchong Hospital, Capital Medical University & Nanchong Central Hospital, Nanchong City, Sichuan Province, China.
Xianchun LiuThe Second Clinical Medical College, North Sichuan Medical College, Beijing Anzhen Nanchong Hospital, Capital Medical University & Nanchong Central Hospital, Nanchong City, Sichuan Province, China.
Wei MaoThe Second Clinical Medical College, North Sichuan Medical College, Beijing Anzhen Nanchong Hospital, Capital Medical University & Nanchong Central Hospital, Nanchong City, Sichuan Province, China.
Li ZhaoThe Second Clinical Medical College, North Sichuan Medical College, Beijing Anzhen Nanchong Hospital, Capital Medical University & Nanchong Central Hospital, Nanchong City, Sichuan Province, China.
Linji LiThe Second Clinical Medical College, North Sichuan Medical College, Beijing Anzhen Nanchong Hospital, Capital Medical University & Nanchong Central Hospital, Nanchong City, Sichuan Province, China.
Ying XieThe Second Clinical Medical College, North Sichuan Medical College, Beijing Anzhen Nanchong Hospital, Capital Medical University & Nanchong Central Hospital, Nanchong City, Sichuan Province, China. xying1025@163.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPostoperative recovery quality (QoR) is a key indicator for evaluating the restoration of patients' functional status and overall quality of life post-surgery. Moreover, it is an essential metric for assessing the effectiveness of patient-centered anesthetic care. The erector spinae plane block (ESPB) is an innovative regional analgesia technique that has garnered considerable attention for its potential use in spinal surgeries. Although some studies suggest that ESPB may improve QoR, the results remain contentious and inconclusive. This meta-analysis aims to systematically evaluate the effects of ESPB on the subjective quality of recovery in patients undergoing spinal surgery, with the objective of providing more robust evidence to support its clinical application.

methodsOn September 23, 2024, we conducted a systematic search across the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Scopus databases to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) relevant to ESPB. The studies evaluated the effect of ESPB compared to conventional analgesia on QoR in patients undergoing spinal surgery. The primary outcome measure of this study was postoperative the 24-hour QoR score, as assessed by validated QoR scales (QoR-15 and QoR-40). Secondary outcome measures included the QoR score at 48 h postoperatively, the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), and the consumption of opioid analgesics in the first 24 h postoperatively.

resultsThis meta-analysis included eight studies, with a total of 578 patients. The results demonstrated that, compared to the control group, the ESPB group showed improvements in overall QoR-15 scores (mean difference [MD]: 9.76; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 8.39-11.13; P < 0.01; I² = 0%) and QoR-40 scores (MD: 11.8; 95% CI: 6.35-17.25; P = 0.000), indicating clinically meaningful benefits. Additionally, although the QoR-15 (MD: 3.69; 95% CI: 2.60-4.78; P < 0.01; I² = 2.31%) and QoR-40 scores (MD: 5.70; 95% CI: 0.11-11.29; P = 0.046) at 48 h postoperatively demonstrated a statistical improvement, the magnitude of this change did not reach the threshold for clinical relevance. Moreover, ESPB reduced the incidence of PONV (log odds ratio [log(OR)]: -0.63; 95% CI: -1.11--0.14; P = 0.01; I² = 24.62%) and the 24-hour postoperative opioid consumption(SMD: -0.56; 95% CI: -0.83--0.29; P < 0.01; I² = 0%).

conclusionESPB was associated with an improvement in the quality of recovery within the first 24 h postoperatively in patients undergoing spinal surgery, along with a reduction in the incidence of PONV and opioid consumption. However, while the improvement in recovery quality at 48 h postoperatively was statistically significant, its clinical significance was limited. These findings suggest that ESPB may be a beneficial adjunct for enhancing postoperative recovery, but further studies are needed to validate its long-term impact and clinical applicability.

Indexed as

Nerve BlockParaspinal MusclesPostoperative PainSpineHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRecovery of FunctionErector spinae plane blockQuality of recoverySpine surgery

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.