Trial reportBMC anesthesiology2026
Comparison between ultrasound guided pericapsular nerve group (PENG) block and interscalene brachial plexus block for postoperative analgesia following shoulder arthroscopy: a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in BMC anesthesiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06235879 (Comparison Between Ultrasound Guided Pericapsular Nerve Group), which is not on this 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.
Comparison Between Ultrasound Guided Pericapsular Nerve Group (PENG) Block and Interscalene Brachial Plexus Block for Postoperative Analgesia Following Shoulder Arthroscopy: Prospective, Randomized Controlled Trial
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 AND
aimShoulder arthroscopy is among the most commonly performed orthopedic procedures. The interscalene brachial plexus (ISB) block is long regarded as the gold standard regional technique for the procedure despite its complications. Ultrasound-guided pericapsular nerve group (PENG) block is now being investigated for shoulder procedures. The present study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes between ultrasound-guided PENG and ISB blocks in the setting of shoulder arthroscopy. PATIENTS AND
methodsThe present randomized study was conducted on 50 patients scheduled for elective unilateral shoulder arthroscopy under general anesthesia. They were randomly and equally allocated to one of the study interventions [ISB (n = 25) or PENG (n = 25) blocks] under ultrasound guidance. All outcome assessors were blinded to the allocated interventions.
resultsNo significant differences were noted between the studied groups regarding postoperative heart rate, mean arterial blood pressure and postoperative pain at different assessment intervals. Also, no significant differences were found between the studied groups regarding the frequency of patients requiring pethidine, total 24-h pethidine dose (106.0 ± 30.0 mg versus 94.0 ± 30.0, p = 0.16) and time to first pethidine request (9.1 ± 1.4 h versus 9.7 ± 1.2, p = 0.11). It was noted that PENG block group had significantly lower frequency of phrenic nerve palsy (0% versus 24.0%, p = 0.022) and paresthesia in the arm (12.0% versus 36.0%, p = 0.047).
conclusionThe present study concludes that the ultrasound-guided PENG block can provide effective management of postoperative pain following shoulder arthroscopy. Importantly, the PENG block offers this benefit with adequate safety profile. CLINICAL
trial registrationThe present study protocol was registered at clinicaltrails.gov (Registration number: NCT06235879; Date: February 1, 2024).
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.