ReviewCureus2025
Erector Spinae Plane Block Versus Caudal Block in Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 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.
- Fascial plane blocks in children: Mechanisms, indications, controversies, and practical guidance: A narrative review.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Erector spinae plane block (ESPB) and caudal epidural block (CEB) are two regional anaesthetic techniques used in paediatric surgical analgesia. While CEB is a well-established method, ESPB has gained increasing interest due to its potential for prolonged analgesia. This systematic review and meta-analysis compared the efficacy and safety of ESPB and CEB in paediatric patients undergoing surgery. Nine randomised controlled trials (n = 612) were included. The primary outcome was time to first rescue analgesia, with secondary outcomes including the Face, Legs, Activity, Cry, and Consolability (FLACC) pain scores and adverse events. A random-effects model was applied due to high heterogeneity (I² > 90%). ESPB significantly prolonged the time to first rescue analgesia compared to CB (standard mean difference (SMD) = 2.75, p < 0.0001). At 24 hours postoperatively, ESPB showed improved FLACC scores (SMD = 0.25, p = 0.03), while CEB provided better analgesia at one hour (SMD = 0.51, p = 0.04). However, a similar proportion of patients in the ESPB group required rescue analgesia when compared to the CEB group (70% vs. 60%, p = 0.62), raising questions about its clinical benefit despite the longer duration of effect. Both techniques demonstrated low and comparable complication rates. ESPB appears to be a safe and effective alternative to CEB, offering prolonged analgesia with similar safety outcomes. However, the clinical relevance of its extended duration is limited by the comparable need for rescue analgesia. Future large-scale, standardised studies are needed to clarify its role in paediatric anaesthesia.
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.