Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41432969›Full record

ReviewPain and therapy2026

The Sacral Erector Spinae Plane Block: A Narrative Review.

Burhan Dost, Madan Narayanan, Francesco Marrone, Alessandro De Cassai, Serkan Tulgar, Can Aksu, Peter Merjavy, Ki Jinn Chin

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Pain and therapy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Erector spinae plane block.BJA education · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Burhan DostDepartment of Anesthesiology and Reanimation, Ondokuz Mayis University Faculty of Medicine, Samsun, Turkey. burhandost@hotmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4562-1172
Madan NarayananFrimley Park Hospital, NHS Frimley Health Foundation Trust, Camberley, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1042-3395
Francesco MarroneDepartment of Anesthesia, Santo Spirito Hospital, Rome, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0840-9180
Alessandro De CassaiDepartment of Medicine (DIMED), University of Padua, Padua, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9773-1832
Serkan TulgarDepartment of Anesthesiology and Reanimation, Göztepe Medical Park Hospital, Bahçeşehir University Faculty of Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1996-7505
Can AksuDepartment of Anesthesiology and Reanimation, School of Medicine, Kocaeli University, Kocaeli, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4389-4257
Peter MerjavyDepartment of Anaesthesia, Southern Health and Social Care Trust, Craigavon, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6813-3641
Ki Jinn ChinDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Toronto Western Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8339-3764

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe sacral erector spinae plane (S-ESP) block is a recently described regional anesthesia technique that targets sacral dermatomes. First reported in 2019, it has been increasingly explored as a potential option for perioperative analgesia in surgeries involving the sacral, perineal, and pelvic regions. This review aims to summarize and critically appraise the current anatomical, technical, and clinical evidence on the S-ESP block, outlining its mechanisms of action, approaches, efficacy, and safety while identifying research gaps and future directions.

methodsWe performed a narrative review integrating anatomical descriptions, sonographic techniques, and available randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the clinical efficacy of the S-ESP block. A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Ovid (Medline) from inception to July 21, 2025, without language or date restrictions. Full-text RCTs investigating ultrasound-guided S-ESP blocks for perioperative analgesia were reviewed and summarized.

resultsFourteen RCTs (published 2023-2025) were included, conducted predominantly in Turkey, India, and Egypt, spanning pediatric (6 months to 12 years) and adult populations undergoing circumcision, hypospadias repair, hemorrhoidectomy, pilonidal sinus surgery, transurethral resection of prostate, lumbar discectomy, and total hip arthroplasty. Most pediatric trials compared midline S-ESP with caudal or penile blocks, generally demonstrating a longer time to first rescue analgesia and reduced postoperative analgesic consumption, although one study reported a superior duration with caudal block. In adults, the S-ESP block consistently reduced pain scores and opioid requirements.

conclusionsCurrent evidence suggests that both midline and paramedian S-ESP techniques are technically feasible, appear safe in the short term, and provide clinically relevant postoperative analgesia in selected pediatric urogenital, adult anorectal, and orthopedic surgeries. However, heterogeneity in techniques, small single-center samples, and a narrow range of indications limit its generalizability. Large, multicenter RCTs with standardized protocols are needed to clarify the optimal approaches, dosing strategies, and comparative role of S-ESP block versus established neuraxial and peripheral techniques.

Indexed as

Caudal blockNerve blockPostoperative analgesiaRegional anesthesiaSacral erector spinae plane blockUltrasound

Identifiers

PMID41432969
PMCPMC12804462

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.