ReviewFrontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland)2025
Pericapsular nerve group block combined with lateral femoral cutaneous nerve block for hip surgery: a meta-analysis.
Review in Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07771829 (Comparison of Ultrasound-Guided QLESP Block Versus Pericapsular Nerve Group Block Combined With Lateral Femoral Cutaneous Nerve Block on Postoperative Analgesia and Functional Recovery in Total Hip Arthroplasty), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
Comparison of Ultrasound-Guided QLESP Block Versus Pericapsular Nerve Group Block Combined With Lateral Femoral Cutaneous Nerve Block on Postoperative Analgesia and Functional Recovery in Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The combination of the pericapsular nerve group (PENG) block and lateral femoral cutaneous nerve (LFCN) block has garnered increasing attention as a postoperative analgesic strategy following hip surgery. Nevertheless, the clinical efficacy of this approach remains a subject of ongoing debate. Through a meta-analysis, the effects of the combined PENG and LFCN block in patients who underwent hip surgery were investigated. Methods: We conducted a systematic search of relevant clinical randomized controlled trials (RCTs) available in English via online databases and grey literature resources. Quantitative analyses were performed to assess pain scores, time to first rescue analgesia, consumption of rescue analgesics, incidence of quadriceps weakness, time to first ambulation, and postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) to comprehensively evaluate the effects of the combined PENG and LFCN block in patients after hip surgery. Results: A total of 12 RCTs involving 823 patients were included in this study. The findings from the quantitative synthesis indicate that the combined PENG and LFCN block significantly decreases postoperative pain scores at rest ( Conclusion: The combined PENG and LFCN block has favourable clinical efficacy for postoperative analgesia in hip surgery patients and is recommended for use. However, more high-quality, large-scale RCTs are needed to further validate our findings. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251142338, PROSPERO CRD420251142338.
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.