ReviewDie Anaesthesiologie2025
[Epidural anesthesia in thoracic and abdominal surgery : Current perspectives and practical implications].
Review in Die Anaesthesiologie, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Thoracic Epidural Analgesia in Major Cancer Surgery: An Update.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Review
- Predisposing Factors for Chronic Post-Surgical Pain After Thoracic Surgery: A Scoping Review with Quantitative Synthesis.Journal of pain research · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
With the rise of minimally invasive and robot-assisted surgical techniques, the role of epidural anesthesia (EA) in modern practice necessitates careful re-evaluation. This review explores the relevance of EA in thoracic and abdominal surgery, examining its practical applications, residual indications and considerations for its use. Additionally, alternative pain management strategies, including systemic analgesia, regional nerve blocks and novel perioperative approaches, are assessed for advantages and limitations compared to EA.Traditionally the gold standard for perioperative pain control in thoracic and abdominal procedures, EA provides superior analgesia, reduced pulmonary complications and promotes early postoperative mobilization; however, the shift towards less invasive types of surgery has raised questions about the necessity and risk-benefit profile of EA. Complications such as hypotension, hematoma and rare neurological injuries emphasize the importance of thorough risk assessment.Emerging data show that alternative methods, such as transversus abdominis plane (TAP) blocks, paravertebral blocks and multimodal analgesia provide comparable efficacy in specific patient groups while often demonstrating a better safety profile. Nevertheless, EA remains essential in extensive thoracic surgery, complex abdominal resections and in patients with a high risk for severe postoperative pain or respiratory compromise. Combining EA with enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols has also shown promise in improving outcomes.In conclusion, while minimally invasive surgical techniques have transformed perioperative care, EA retains a critical role in selected indications. Individualized planning of anesthesia, weighing EA against evolving alternatives and tailored to surgical and patient-specific factors, is essential. This review highlights the integration of evidence-based strategies to optimize the role of EA in contemporary surgical treatment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40195152What 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.