Trial reportPloS one2026
High-versus conventional-volume pericapsular nerve group (PENG) block for total hip arthroplasty: A randomized, controlled trial.
Trial report in PloS one, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCurrently, the optimal volume of pericapsular nerve group (PENG) block for analgesia after total hip arthroplasty (THA) has not been clarified. In this trial, we investigated whether a high-volume PENG block has a superior analgesic effect than a conventional PENG block for primary THA.
methodsForty patients receiving primary THA under spinal anesthesia were enrolled and randomly divided into the high-volume PENG group (40 mL of 0.375% ropivacaine) and the conventional-volume PENG group (20 mL of 0.375% ropivacaine). Dexamethasone (5 mg) was added to the local anesthetic in both groups. A blinded researcher performed pain scores and lower limb sensory and motor block assessments at 3, 6, and 24 h after surgery. The time of first walking, time of first opioid consumption, total opioid consumption within 48 h, nerve block, opioid-related complications, and length of hospital stay were recorded. The primary outcome was the dynamic pain scores at 6 h post-surgery.
resultsThirty-seven patients were included in the final analysis, among whom 18 were in the high-volume group and 19 in the conventional-volume group. There were no significant differences between the two groups in dynamic pain scores at 6h after surgery [median and interquartile range (p25, p75) 5(4,6) vs 4 (4,5)] and other secondary outcomes.
conclusionsThe high-volume PENG block is not superior to conventional-volume PENG block in improving post-operative analgesia in patients undergoing primary THA and does not increase the risk of quadriceps weakness.
trial registrationChinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR, https://www.chictr.org.cn). Clinical trial registration number: ChiCTR2300077281.
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.