SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2025
A comparison of regional anesthesia techniques for pain management in patients undergoing liver surgery: a network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 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.
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
Objective: This research aimed to evaluate the pain-relieving effectiveness and practicality of various regional anesthesia approaches in individuals undergoing hepatic procedures. Method: A total of 10 randomized controlled trials involving 710 patients were included. We considered any article comprising head-to-head evaluations of at least two of the seven focal regional modalities: continuous subcutaneous/local anesthetic wound infusion (CLAI), continuous erector spinae plane block (ESPB), thoracic epidural analgesia (EA), single-shot erector spinae plane block (ESPB), intrathecal morphine (ITM), quadratus lumborum block (QLB), or continuous thoracic paravertebral block (CTPVB). The primary outcome was postoperative pain scores at rest and movement. Secondary outcomes included morphine consumption at 24, 48, and 72 h; duration of inpatient stay; incidence of postoperative nausea/vomiting (PONV); and any adverse events. Results: For resting pain scores, pairwise meta-analysis of EA compared to CLAI demonstrated no significant difference at 24 h (SMD = -0.71; 95% CI -2.09, -0.67) and at 48 h postoperatively (SMD = -0.13, 95% CI -0.74, -0.48). However, during movement, EA compared to CLAI demonstrated a significant difference at 24 h (SMD = -1.71, 95% CI -2.26, -1.17) and 48 h (SMD = -0.99, 95% CI -1.46, -0.53) postoperatively. This study does not provide conclusions regarding morphine equivalents at 72 h, the incidence of PONV, or the duration of hospital stay due to the absence of pairwise meta-analysis among the included regional anesthesia techniques. Conclusion: Among the seven regional anesthesia techniques for liver surgery, EA demonstrates strong analgesic efficacy but requires assessment of coagulation risk, while CESPB and QLB showcase a good safety profile but lack sufficient long-term evidence. This study offers comparative insights to guide clinical decisions rather than definite evidence of overall reliability or low risk associated with regional anesthesia.
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.