Trial reportBMC anesthesiology2025
Distribution pattern of different volumes of ropivacaine in ultrasound-guided intertransverse process block: a randomized, blinded, computed tomography imaging study.
Trial report in BMC anesthesiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Intertransverse process and modified thoracolumbar interfascial plane blocks compared with conventional analgesia in lumbar disc herniation surgery: a randomized controlled trial.BMC anesthesiology · 2026Trial
- Article
- A narrative review on fascial plane blocks - Part A: Anatomical foundations and mechanistic insights.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2026Review
- Comparing Ultrasound and Computed Tomography in Regional Anesthesia: Real-Time Precision or Radiologic Clarity?Cureus · 2025Review
- Comparison of injectate spread following transverse vs. sagittalFrontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Regional analgesia for postoperative pain control after thoracic surgery: a narrative review.Journal of Yeungnam medical science · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIntertransverse process (ITP) blocks showed reliable paravertebral spread in cadaveric studies, but specific distribution patterns, spread pathways, and dose‒effect relationships remain unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate the distribution patterns of three different volumes of local anesthetic (LA) in ITP block in living humans using computed tomography.
methodsForty-five individuals (18-75 years old) were randomized to receive 0.375% ropivacaine with radiopaque contrast agent at doses of 0.3, 0.4, or 0.5 ml/kg. The primary outcome was the distribution of LA in mediastinal compartments (prevascular, visceral, and paravertebral), retro-superior costotransverse ligament space, erector spinae fascia plane, intercostal space, sympathetic ganglion, costotransverse space, intervertebral foramen, lateral recess, and epidural space. The secondary outcomes included intraoperative and postoperative VAS scores, dermatomal sensory loss, block-related adverse events, and the time required for block administration.
resultsThe spread pattern of local anesthetic after intertransverse process block includes both forward and backward spread. The LA was concentrated in the visceral compartment (77.5%), paravertebral compartment (93.3%), erector spinae fascia plane (97.8%), intercostal space (97.8%), and sympathetic ganglion (88.9%), with occasional spread to other areas. The overall distribution pattern was significantly influenced by patient position (R
conclusionsITP block causes the LA to predominantly spread to the paravertebral compartment, visceral compartment, intercostal space, sympathetic ganglion, and erector spinae fascia plane. Within the range of volumes studied (0.3, 0.4, and 0.5 ml/kg), increasing the LA volume did not result in a wider distribution range; the overall distribution pattern was primarily influenced by patient positioning.
trial registrationThe trial was registered online on 3 April 2024 in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2400082665).
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.