SynthesisBMC anesthesiology2026
Effect of erector spinae block on postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing lung surgical procedures: a systematic review and trial sequential analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in BMC anesthesiology, 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.
- The Missing Block: Regional Anaesthesia as the Unseen Driver of Post-Thoracoscopic Pain Trajectories.European journal of pain (London, England) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLung surgery is often accompanied by significant pain, leading to high opioid use and related side effects. This systematic review and meta-analysis examine the effect of the erector spinae plane block (ESPB) in reducing postoperative pain, opioid consumption, and postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) after lung surgery.
methodsA systematic database search was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ESPB with a control in patients undergoing lung surgical procedures. The primary outcome was the early (6 h), intermediate (12 h), and late (24 h) pain scores at rest and during movement. The secondary outcomes were 24 h postoperative opioid consumption and postoperative nausea and vomiting. Mean differences (MD) and odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using a random-effects model.
results20 RCTs with 1,391 patients were included in the meta-analysis (ESPB vs. control: 668 vs. 723). ESPB significantly reduced resting pain at 6 h (MD: 1.26; 95% CI: 0.78-1.75; p < 0.00001), 12 h (MD: 1.22; 95% CI: 0.41-2.03; p = 0.003), and 24 h (MD: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.33-0.90; p < 0.0001). Similarly, movement-evoked pain was reduced at 6 h (MD: 1.54; 95% CI: 0.71-2.37; p < 0.0001), 12 h (MD: 1.32; 95% CI: 0.88-1.76; p < 0.00001), and 24 h (MD: 0.91; 95% CI: 0.36-1.46; p = 0.001). Ten RCTs showed reduced 24-hour postoperative opioid consumption (MD: 16.74; 95% CI: 7.28-26.19; p = 0.0005) and decreased PONV incidence (OR: 0.32; 95% CI: 0.20-0.51; p < 0.001) in the ESPB group. Although statistically significant, the observed reductions in pain scores correspond to modest absolute differences of approximately 1-1.5 points on a 10-point scale in the early postoperative period and less than 1 point at 24 h. The certainty of evidence across all outcomes was low, primarily due to substantial clinical heterogeneity and variability in study protocols.
conclusionESPB appears to provide modest but consistent improvements in postoperative pain control, opioid consumption, and PONV after lung surgery. However, given the low certainty of evidence (GRADE) and substantial between-study heterogeneity, these findings support ESPB as an adjunct rather than a definitive regional analgesic strategy for lung 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.