ReviewJournal of anesthesia2026
Findings and limitations of cadaveric studies in plan A blocks: a narrative review.
Review in Journal of anesthesia, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cadaveric studies provide anatomical information unavailable from clinical investigations and have contributed to the development of regional anesthesia techniques. The Plan A framework comprises seven versatile techniques intended for routine clinical practice. However, related cadaveric evidence remains insufficiently synthesized. This narrative review summarizes and critically appraises cadaveric studies of Plan A blocks. A focused literature search identified 54 studies investigating the interscalene brachial plexus block, axillary brachial plexus block, femoral nerve block, adductor canal block, popliteal sciatic nerve block, erector spinae plane block (ESPB), and rectus sheath block. Studies of the six blocks other than ESPB clarified target anatomy, injectate distribution, and technical or safety considerations, but were generally limited by small numbers of studies and uncertain clinical applicability. The ESPB accounted for half of the included studies. These consistently demonstrated extensive craniocaudal spread within the erector spinae fascial plane, whereas anterior spread to the paravertebral space and ventral rami was inconsistent and was not reliably explained by injectate characteristics or volume. Cadaveric models cannot reproduce physiological conditions or establish clinical efficacy, but remain valuable for visualizing injectate spread and investigating anatomical mechanisms. Integration with imaging and clinical studies is required to translate these findings into clinical recommendations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42611206What 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.