SynthesisBone & joint open2026
Comparative efficacy of analgesic techniques in total hip arthroplasty : a systematic review and network meta-analysis of more than 100 randomized studies incorporating minimal clinically important difference.
Synthesis in Bone & joint open, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims: We compared the analgesic efficacy of commonly used analgesic techniques in patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA). This included femoral nerve block, supra- and infrainguinal fascia iliaca block, lumbar plexus block (LPB), intrathecal morphine (ITM), periarticular injection (PAI), pericapsular nerve group block (PENG), iliopsoas block (IPB), anterior, lateral, and posterior quadratus lumborum block (QLA/QLL/QLP), lateral femoral cutaneous nerve block (LFCNB), and placebo. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and Web of Science from their date of inception through to December 2025 was performed. The primary outcome of interest was postoperative day 1 (POD1) pain scores. Secondary outcomes of interest include pain levels at 12 hours postoperatively, opioid consumption within 24 hours after surgery, time to first mobilization, and hospital length of stay. Clinical and statistical significance were evaluated for each outcome. Results: We identified 112 studies. No analgesic technique demonstrated a clinically meaningful reduction in POD1 pain scores. IPB + PAI showed clinically meaningful reduction in 12-hour pain scores when compared with placebo. Similarly, both ITM and IPB + PAI showed clinically meaningful reduction in opioid consumption. Statistically significant reduction in time to first mobilization was seen in the PENG + LFCNB, QLL, PENG, and suprainguinal fascia iliaca block groups as compared with placebo. The hospital length of stay was shorter in the ITM and PENG groups as compared with placebo. Conclusion: Within the limitations of this study, clinically meaningful reduction in pain scores was not observed in most analgesic techniques following THA. ITM demonstrated reduction in 24-hour opioid consumption with a shorter length of hospital stay, while PENG demonstrated shorter time to mobilization as well as a shorter length of hospital stay. Interpretation of these results should consider the substantial heterogeneity encountered in the measurement of 24-hour morphine consumption, as well as the potential side effects of ITM.
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.