ReviewFrontiers in surgery2026
Efficacy of anterior serratus plane block and intercostal nerve block in cardiothoracic surgery: a meta-analysis.
Review in Frontiers in surgery, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This study aims to evaluate the differences in analgesic efficacy between the SAPB and INB in cardiothoracic surgery through a meta-analysis. Methods: PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science were searched from the establishment of the databases until July 10, 2025. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy of SAPB and INB in cardiothoracic surgery were included. Quality assessment was performed using risk of bias. All data were analyzed using Stata 15 software. Results: A total of 9 randomized controlled trials involving 606 patients were included, meta-analysis results indicated that no differences in 6-h pain scores [SMD = 0.28, 95% CI (-0.50, 1.06)], 12-h pain scores [SMD = -0.59, 95% CI (-1.71, 0.53)], 24-h pain scores [SMD = -0.07, 95% CI (-0.67, 0.52)], incidence of nausea and vomiting[RR = 0.84, 95% CI (0.27, 2.57)] and length of hospital stay [SMD = 0.01, 95% CI (-0.30, 0.32)]between the SAPB group and the INB group, However, compared with INB, SAPB may reduce total opioid consumption[SMD = -1.99, 95% CI (-3.21, -0.77)]. Conclusions: Overall, current evidence suggests that SAPB provides analgesic efficacy comparable to INB in cardiothoracic surgery. Subgroup analyses indicated that SAPB may be associated with lower pain scores in thoracotomy procedures and reduced opioid consumption in certain clinical settings; however, these findings should be interpreted cautiously due to heterogeneity across studies. Further high-quality randomized controlled trials are warranted to confirm these results. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251080642, PROSPERO CRD420251080642.
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.