ArticleBMC anesthesiology2025
Intrathecal hydromorphone vs. transversus abdominis plane block for upper abdominal surgery: a propensity score-matching study.
Article in BMC anesthesiology, 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.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMultimodal analgesia is vital for enhanced recovery after upper-abdominal surgery. While both Intrathecal hydromorphone (ITH) and transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block are widely applied in upper-abdominal surgery, evidence comparing the two techniques remains limited. This retrospective study employs a propensity score-matching (PSM) design to evaluate the analgesic efficacy of TAP block and ITH in upper-abdominal surgeries.
methodsPSM analysis was performed to minimize differences in baseline characteristics. The primary outcome was defined as the incidence of moderate-to-severe pain during movement within 24 h (hr) postoperatively. The secondary outcomes included the incidence of moderate-to-severe pain at rest or during movement at different times within 72 h postoperatively, numerical rating scale score (NRS) score at rest or during movement within 72 h, complications, morphine equivalent, and indicators of postoperative rehabilitation.
resultsAmong the 182 patients analyzed after PSM, patients in the ITH group presented a lower incidence of moderate-to-severe pain on movement at 24 h after surgery (TAP vs. ITH, 44.0% vs. 27.5%; p = 0.02) compared to the TAP group. However, the median NRS of patients in the ITH group at rest at 48 and 72 h after surgery was higher (48 h: TAP vs. ITH, 0 vs. 1; p = 0.01) (72 h: TAP vs. ITH, 0 vs. 1; p = 0.01) than that of patients in the TAP group. Pruritus within the first 24 h after surgery occurred more frequently in the ITH group (TAP vs. ITH, 6.6% vs. 29.7%; p < 0.001). The first flatus occurred earlier in the TAP group (TAP vs. ITH, 57.0 h vs. 68.0 h; p = 0.03). The first-day morphine equivalent was significantly lower in the ITH group (TAP vs. ITH, 15.0 mg vs. 12.3 mg; p = 0.01).
conclusionThis study revealed that ITH was better at reducing the incidence of moderate-to-severe pain during movement within the first day after surgery. These findings suggest that ITH could be an effective choice for upper abdominal surgery. Further validation through randomized controlled trials (RCT) is required to establish optimal pain management protocols.
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.