ReviewJournal of pain research2025
Paravertebral Block versus Erector Spinae Plane Block for Postoperative Analgesia and Recovery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Journal of pain research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Erector spinae plane block (ESPB) versus paravertebral plane block (PVB) in managing post-operative pain in breast cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.World journal of surgical oncology · 2026Pooled it
- Trial
- Is Thoracic Paravertebral Block Truly Superior to Erector Spinae Plane Block? Re-Evaluating the Evidence from a Recovery Perspective [Letter].Drug design, development and therapy · 2026Article
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: This systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to assess the relative efficacy of paravertebral block (PVB) and erector spinae plane block (ESPB) for postoperative analgesia and recovery. Methods: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating PVB and ESPB for postoperative analgesia and recovery were retrieved from databases, including PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Science-Direct, and Google Scholar, from inception to January 2025. The primary outcome included resting Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) at 6 h and quality of recovery (QoR) score in first 24 h. The meta-analysis was conducted using Stata 15.1 software. The certainty of the evidence was assessed utilizing the risk of bias and GRADE frameworks. Results: We included 33 RCTs with 2256 patients. For resting VAS at 6 h, there was no significant difference between PVB and ESPB (mean difference [MD] = -0.08, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.44 to 0.27). For QoR, there was no significant difference between PVB and ESPB (MD = -0.44, 95% CI: -2.64 to 1.76). For resting VAS at 12 h, ESPB had a lower VAS than PVB. For resting VAS at 24 h, movement VAS at 6 h, 12 h, 24 h, time of first rescue analgesia, LOS, and postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), there were no significant differences between PVB and ESPB. However, PVB had a lower morphine consumption than ESPB. Conclusion: There were no significant clinical differences between PVB and ESPB in terms of the VAS, QoR, time of first rescue analgesia, LOS, and PONV. Based on existing evidences, we recommended the application of ESPB in thoracic surgery, breast surgery, kidney surgery, and abdominal surgery. Limitation: The included studies showed considerable variability in postoperative analgesia protocols, which increased heterogeneity in the results. There was a lack of data on long-term analgesia and functional outcomes.
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.