ArticleIndian journal of anaesthesia2025
Efficacy of ultrasound-guided sacral erector spinae block in elective surgery. An up-to-date systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
Article in Indian journal of anaesthesia, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Sacral Erector Spinae Plane Block: A Narrative Review.Pain and therapy · 2026Review
- Reflection on the sacral erector spinae plane block meta-analysis: When the name and the numbers don't tell the whole story.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2026Article
- Ultrasound-guided sacral multifidus plane block for perioperative analgesia: A comprehensive systematic review, meta-analysis, and trial sequential analysis.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 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
Background and Aims: The sacral erector spinae plane block (SESPB) is emerging as a promising ultrasound-guided regional anaesthesia technique for postoperative pain management in various surgical procedures. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the efficacy of SESPB when used in combination with spinal anaesthesia. Methods: We conducted a search of PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, covering literature up to April 2025. Our analysis included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the outcomes of SESPB used with spinal anaesthesia against spinal anaesthesia alone in patients undergoing elective surgeries. The primary endpoint was the need for rescue opioid analgesics in the postoperative period. Secondary outcomes included postoperative pain levels at 12 and 24 h after surgery, the total amount of opioids consumed in the postoperative period and the time to the first opioid requirement after surgery. Results: We identified and included three RCTs in the quantitative analysis. The pooled data indicated that SESPB combined with spinal anaesthesia significantly reduced the need for rescue opioid analgesics compared with spinal anaesthesia alone (odds ratio = 0.05; 95% confidence interval = 0.02,0.16; Conclusions: This meta-analysis of RCTs indicated that the use of SESPB in conjunction with spinal anaesthesia results in a reduced need for rescue opioid analgesics and improved postoperative pain management at 24 h for patients undergoing elective surgery.
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.