SynthesisThe British journal of surgery2026
Rectus sheath catheters versus thoracic epidural analgesia for pain management after open surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in The British journal of surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Acute Pain Management in the Intensive Care Unit.Current pain and headache reports · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThoracic epidural analgesia (TEA) remains the 'gold standard' for postoperative pain management after major open surgery, but is potentially associated with hypotension, urinary retention, and delayed recovery. Rectus sheath catheters (RSCs) offer a simple regional alternative that avoids sympathetic blockade while maintaining somatic analgesia. The aim of this review was to compare analgesic efficacy, complications, recovery, patient satisfaction, and costs between RSCs and TEA in open surgical procedures.
methodsThis systematic review was registered with PROSPERO, the international prospective register of systematic reviews (registration number: CRD420251234467). A systematic PubMed search was conducted to identify studies comparing continuous wound infusion via RSCs with TEA in adult patients undergoing open abdominal, pelvic, thoracic, or vascular surgery. RCTs, as well as prospective and retrospective comparative studies, were included. A meta-analysis was performed for randomized trials.
resultsIn total, 31 studies (21 prospective and 10 retrospective) involving 2162 patients were included. RSCs and TEA did not differ significantly with respect to postoperative pain (standardized mean difference -0.35 (95% c.i. -2.01 to 1.32)) or opioid consumption (standardized mean difference -0.32 (95% c.i. -1.71 to 1.07)). No differences were observed in recovery of bowel function, urinary retention, time to mobilization, or length of hospital stay. RSCs significantly reduced the risk of hypotension compared with TEA (risk ratio 0.40 (95% c.i. 0.26 to 0.60)) and were associated with lower costs with savings ranging from $500 to $6632 per case. Subgroup analyses suggested less urinary retention and earlier mobilization with RSCs in non-visceral surgery and non-laparotomy incisions.
conclusionRSCs provide analgesia comparable to TEA with fewer complications, facilitating earlier recovery and potential cost savings. Considering the growing shift toward fast-track surgery, RSCs represent a pragmatic and resource-efficient alternative for postoperative pain management in open surgical procedures.
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.