ArticleJournal of pain research2026
Intertransverse Process Block versus Erector Spinae Plane Block as Adjuncts to an Interpectoral Block for Breast Cancer Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial.
Article in Journal of pain research, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This trial compared the efficacy of intertransverse process block (ITPB) with erector spinae plane block (ESPB), each in combination with an interpectoral block (IPB), with systemic analgesia for breast cancer surgery. Patients and Methods: Ninety patients were randomized to ITPB/IPB, ESPB/IPB, or control under general anesthesia. The primary outcome was 24-hour morphine consumption. Secondary outcomes included intraoperative fentanyl use, numeric rating scale (NRS) pain scores, and recovery parameters. A 40% reduction in morphine consumption and a 2-point NRS decrease were prespecified as minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs). The IPB was applied equally in both intervention groups to reduce pectoral nerve-mediated pain. Results: Median (IQR) 24-hour morphine use was 0 mg (0-6), 3 mg (0-4), and 6 mg (3-6) in the ITPB/IPB, ESPB/IPB, and control groups, respectively. Morphine consumption did not differ between the ITPB/IPB and ESPB/IPB (median difference 0 mg; 95% CI 0 to 1; Conclusion: Both ITPB/IPB and ESPB/IPB provided comparable and effective analgesia after breast cancer surgery. Given its shorter performance time, ESPB may be the more practical option. However, because the IPB constituted a shared analgesic component in both groups, the independent analgesic effects of ITPB and ESPB remain uncertain and warrant further investigation.
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.