ArticleEFORT open reviews2025
Efficacy of pericapsular nerve group block for pain control and functional recovery after total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Article in EFORT open reviews, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pericapsular nerve group block for total hip arthroplasty: A systematic review.The Journal of international medical research · 2026Pooled it
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: The objective of this study was to assess the benefits of the PENG block on pain control and functional recovery. Methods: Randomized controlled trials in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were selected, and data were meta-analyzed using a random-effects model to estimate mean difference (MD) or standardized mean differences (SMD). Results: Eleven trials involving 1,135 patients were included. The PENG block was associated with significantly lower total opioid consumption than sham/no block (MD: -25.23, 95% CI: -27.01 to -23.45, I 2 = 0%), as well as better functional recovery. The PENG block was noninferior to the suprainguinal fascia iliaca block regarding postoperative pain scores and functional recovery and had a significant reduction in total opioid consumption (MD: -8.25, 95% CI: -16.48 to -0.02, I 2 = 68%). The PENG block was associated with similar total opioid consumption and functional recovery as the periarticular anesthetic infiltration (PAI), but worse static pain scores at 12 h (SMD: 0.41, 95% CI: 0.08-0.75, I 2 = 51%) and dynamic pain scores at 48 h after surgery (SMD: 0.36, 95% CI: 0.08-0.64, I 2 = 0%). Conclusions: While current evidence supports the PENG block as a viable alternative to other types of peripheral analgesia in THA, existing data remain insufficient to conclude that the PENG block outperforms other peripheral analgesia when it comes to pain control or functional recovery. More well-designed randomized controlled trials are needed in the future to thoroughly explore whether the PENG block has superiority over other analgesic techniques.
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.