Trial reportBMC anesthesiology2026
Respiratory effects of rectus sheath block in patients undergoing major upper abdominal surgery: a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in BMC anesthesiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPostoperative pulmonary complications remain a major concern after upper abdominal surgery and are often exacerbated by either inadequate pain control or opioid-based analgesia. We evaluated the analgesic efficacy and respiratory effects of ultrasound-guided RSB in patients undergoing upper abdominal surgery.
methodsIn this prospective, randomized, controlled trial, 60 patients aged 18–62 years, with ASA I or II status, who underwent upper abdominal surgery under general anesthesia, were enrolled and divided into two groups (30 patients each). RSB Group received ultrasound-guided rectus sheath block after induction of general anesthesia with 40 ml volume of 0.25% bupivacaine and 8 mg dexamethasone (half the volume on each side). The control group received standard anesthesia care without RSB. Pain scores, opioid consumption, diaphragmatic inspiratory amplitude (DIA), and pulmonary function tests were assessed in the immediate postoperative period.
resultsDiaphragmatic inspiratory amplitude decreased significantly from baseline at 6, 12, and 24 h postoperatively in both groups (P value < 0.001) with no significant intergroup differences. Forced vital capacity (FVC), forced expiratory volume in first second (FEV1) and Peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR) declined postoperatively in both groups but remained comparable between groups. The RSB group demonstrated significantly lower early postoperative pain scores (P = 0.007), delayed time to first rescue analgesia, reduced total opioid consumption (P < 0.001), and higher patient satisfaction (P = 0.041) with reduced incidence of side effects compared with controls.
conclusionRSB provided effective opioid-sparing analgesia without impairing pulmonary function. Its simplicity, safety, and compatibility with enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols highlight its role as a valuable adjunct to multimodal analgesia in upper abdominal surgery.
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.