SynthesisBMC anesthesiology2025
Comparative efficacy of sphenopalatine ganglion block versus scalp block for hemodynamic stability during craniotomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC anesthesiology, 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.
- Evaluation of the Effect of Scalp Nerve Block on Bispectral Index Values During Skull Pinning; Prospective Observational Study.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Observational
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
backgroundMaintaining hemodynamic stability during craniotomy is essential to prevent elevated intracranial pressure and related complications. Regional blocks, including sphenopalatine ganglion (SPG) block and scalp block, may stabilize hemodynamics, but comparative evidence is limited. This study systematically evaluated the efficacy and safety of SPG block versus scalp block in adults undergoing craniotomy.
methodsThis systematic review and meta-analysis adhered to the PRISMA guidelines. We searched PubMed, CENTRAL, Scopus, and EBSCO (2010–2025). Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing SPG block with scalp block in adult craniotomy patients. Primary outcomes were intraoperative MAP and HR. Secondary outcomes included intracranial pressure (ICP), postoperative pain, opioid use, and complications. Data were synthesized using random-effects meta-analysis.
resultsFive RCTs (n = 285) were included. No significant differences in MAP or HR were observed in the SPG block group compared with the control group at all measured time points, including post–pin insertion, post–skin incision, and post–dural incision. (peak MAP = -0.01 [-0.12–0.09]; cumulative MAP = 0.00 [-0.14–0.13]; peak HR = -0.05 [-0.16–0.06]; cumulative HR = -0.09 [-0.19–0.02]). Secondary outcomes suggested SPG block may lower ICP, improve brain relaxation, and reduce postoperative pain and opioid requirement with minimal complications.
conclusionBoth SPG block and scalp block maintained intraoperative hemodynamic stability. However, SPG block demonstrated additional advantages, including improved postoperative analgesia, lower intracranial pressure, and enhanced brain relaxation, while remaining a simple and noninvasive technique with minimal adverse effects. Evidence is limited by small sample sizes, highlighting the need for larger, standardized trials to confirm these findings.
trial registrationPROSPERO ID: CRD420251131959.
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.