ArticleBMC anesthesiology2025
Analgesic efficacy of different volumes in erector spinae plane block in patients undergoing single level lumbar spine fixation: a non-inferiority randomized trial.
Article in BMC anesthesiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05892887 (Analgesic Efficacy of Different Volumes in Erector Spinae Plane Block in Patients Undergoing Single Level Lumbar Spine Fixation), which is not on this 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.
Analgesic Efficacy of Different Volumes in Erector Spinae Plane Block in Patients Undergoing Single Level Lumbar Spine Fixation: A Non-inferiority Randomized Clinical Trial
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of ultrasound-guided erector spinae plane block to intrathecal morphine for postoperative analgesia in patients undergoing elective lumbar fusion operations under general anesthesia: a randomized controlled trial.BMC anesthesiology · 2026Trial
- Ultrasound guided external oblique intercostal plane block versus posterior transversus abdominis plane block for postoperative analgesia in adult patients undergoing open nephrectomy: a randomized trial.BMC anesthesiology · 2026Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUsing a lower volume (LVs) of local anaesthetic (LA) reduces the risk of toxicity, side effects, and cost. Our study assessed whether the lower LA volumes (10 or 15 ml) have the same analgesic efficacy as 20 ml of erector spinae plane block (ESPB) in single-level lumbar spine fixation.
methodsOur non-inferiority, randomised, double-blind trial recruited sixty cases scheduled for single-level lumbar spine fixation. All cases had bilateral ultrasound-guided (USG) ESPB before the surgery by bupivacaine 0.25% and were randomised into three groups according to the volume used: 10 ml for the E10 group, 15 ml for the E15 group, and 20 ml for the E20 group. The primary outcome was total morphine consumption. The secondary outcomes were pain scores, time of first analgesic, side effects, and patient satisfaction.
resultsThere was a non-inferior positive analgesic effect in terms of intraoperative fentanyl consumption, time till first rescue analgesia (P = 0.862), postoperative morphine within the first 24 and 48 h, and pain score in groups E10 and E15 compared to group E20 (P > 0.05). Patients who required intraoperative fentanyl were 4 (20%) in group E10, 2 (10%) in group E15, and 1 (5%) in group E20 (P = 0.322). Postoperative morphine within the first 24 h was 3.6 ± 1.23 mg in group E10, 3.3 ± 0.92 mg in group E15, 3.3 ± 0.92 mg in group E20 (P = 0.575), and at 48 h was 6.8 ± 1.65 mg in group E10, 6.2 ± 1.81 mg in group E15, 5.6 ± 1.76 mg in group E20 (P = 0.103). Intraoperative hemodynamic measurements, ambulation time, patient satisfaction, and complications were comparable among the three groups (P > 0.05).
conclusionsPreoperative ESPB is an effective analgesic technique for single-level lumbar spine fixation, with LVs proving non-inferior to higher volumes in clinical outcomes while potentially minimizing toxicity and side effects.
trial registrationRegistration at clinical trial gov. (ID: NCT05892887). The date of the first registration submission was (2023-05-10), and the study started on 2023-06-01.
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.