Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41664616›Full record

Trial reportHealth technology assessment (Winchester, England)2026

The clinical and cost-effectiveness of paravertebral blockade versus thoracic epidural blockade in reducing chronic post-thoracotomy pain: TOPIC2 RCT synopsis.

Ben Shelley, Lee Middleton, Andreas Goebel, Stephen Grant, Louise Jackson, Mishal Javed, Marcus Jepson, Nandor Marczin, Rajnikant Mehta, Teresa Melody and 9 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled TrialMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in Health technology assessment (Winchester, England), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

19 authors.

Ben ShelleyAnaesthesia, Perioperative Medicine and Critical Care Research Group, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6771-9659
Lee MiddletonBirmingham Clinical Trials Unit, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4621-1922
Andreas GoebelPain Research Institute, ILCAMS, Clinical Sciences Centre, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3763-8206
Stephen GrantPatient and Public Partner.
Louise JacksonDepartment of Applied Health Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8492-0020
Mishal JavedDepartment of Applied Health Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.ORCID 0009-0007-5095-4231
Marcus JepsonPopulation Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3261-1626
Nandor MarczinImperial College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3690-5891
Rajnikant MehtaBirmingham Clinical Trials Unit, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5341-5598
Teresa MelodyUniversity Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4424-8310
Babu NaiduUniversity Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1576-230X
Hannah SummersBirmingham Clinical Trials Unit, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8854-3912
Lajos SzentgyorgyiManchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Wythenshawe Hospital, Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1196-1758
Sarah TearneBirmingham Clinical Trials Unit, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7944-2917
Ben WatkinsBirmingham Clinical Trials Unit, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Matthew WilsonSheffield Centre for Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9704-5189
Andrew WorrallPatient and Public Partner.
Joyce YeungWarwick Clinical Trials Unit, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Warwick, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2950-4758
Fang Gao SmithUniversity Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8095-0609

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: More than a third of patients undergoing thoracotomy suffer from debilitating chronic post-thoracotomy pain lasting months or years postoperatively. Aggressive management of acute pain during the perioperative period may mitigate this risk. Objective(s): To determine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of paravertebral blockade compared to thoracic epidural blockade, by testing the hypothesis that paravertebral blockade reduces the incidence of chronic post-thoracotomy pain. Design and methods: A parallel, open, multicentre, randomised controlled with integrated health-economic evaluation and an internal pilot that incorporated a qualitative recruitment intervention. Setting and participants: Adult patients undergoing thoracotomy in 15 United Kingdom centres. Interventions: Paravertebral blockade compared to thoracic epidural blockade. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was the presence of chronic post-thoracotomy pain at 6 months post randomisation defined as 'worst chest pain over the last week' of at least moderate intensity, with a visual analogue scale score ≥ 40 mm. Secondary outcomes included visual analogue scale pain scores in the acute (days 1, 2, 3 and discharge) and chronic (3, 6 and 12 months) phases postoperatively; Brief Pain Inventory; Short Form McGill Pain Questionnaire 2; Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale; patient satisfaction; analgesia use in the acute and chronic phases; complications (analgesic, surgical and pulmonary) and mortality. For the economic evaluation, the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version questionnaire was utilised. Results: Between 8 January 2019 and 29 September 2023, 770 patients underwent randomisation; 33 did not proceed to thoracotomy. At 6 months, 59 (22%) of 272 participants in the paravertebral blockade group and 47 (16%) of 292 in the thoracic epidural blockade group developed chronic pain [adjusted risk ratio = 1.32 (95% confidence interval 0.93 to 1.86); adjusted risk difference = 0.05 (95% confidence interval -0.01 to 0.11); Limitations: The main limitation is the reduced sample size from 1026 to 770, which reduced the associated power from 90% to 80%. The key reasons are related to practice change over time resulting in a downgrade in equipoise and the COVID pandemic. Also, we cannot rule out that lack of blinding may have had some impact on the acute phase outcomes. Conclusions: In our study, paravertebral blockade and thoracic epidural blockade appear to be equivalent in clinical and cost-effectiveness in preventing chronic post-thoracotomy at 6 months; this may be paving the way for both techniques likely to continue in National Health Service thoracic settings, based on clinician and patient's choices. Future work: Using full TOPIC-2 data sets, defined according to the European Society of Thoracic Surgeons data set, to explore the trajectory of the development from acute to chronic post-surgery pain. Funding: This synopsis presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme as award number 16/111/111.

Indexed as

Chronic PainNerve BlockPostoperative PainThoracotomyAgedCost-Benefit AnalysisCost-Effectiveness AnalysisFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPain MeasurementPatient SatisfactionQuality-Adjusted Life YearsUnited KingdomCHRONIC PAINPARAVERTEBRAL BLOCKADEREGIONAL ANAESTHESIATHORACIC ANAESTHESIATHORACIC EPIDURAL BLOCKADETHORACIC SURGERYTHORACOTOMY

Identifiers

PMID41664616
PMCPMC12907990

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.