ArticleCureus2026
Comparative Evaluation of Deep Versus Superficial Erector Spinae Plane Blocks for Postoperative Analgesia in Modified Radical Mastectomy.
Article in Cureus, 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
Background and aims The erector spinae plane (ESP) block is a popular technique for postoperative analgesia across various surgical procedures. This study aimed to compare two different approaches - the superficial ESP (SES) block and deep ESP (DES) block - for the duration and quality of analgesia in women undergoing modified radical mastectomy (MRM). Materials and methods This prospective, double-blind, randomized comparative study was conducted on 44 American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I/II patients aged 18-65 years and posted for MRM. Patients were randomly assigned to either Group DES or Group SES. Following induction of anesthesia, patients were turned lateral, and the ultrasound-guided blocks were performed at the level of the fourth thoracic vertebra (T4) with 20 mL of 0.25% bupivacaine and 6 mg dexamethasone, as per group allocation. Time to first request of supplemental analgesia, postoperative numeric rating scale (NRS) scores, and total analgesic consumption over 24 hours postoperatively were recorded. Results There was no significant difference in time to first request for supplemental analgesia between the two groups. Group DES demonstrated a lower percentage of patients requesting supplemental analgesia compared to Group SES (18.2% vs. 63.6%, p = 0.002). Additionally, Group DES had significantly lower total postoperative analgesic consumption (17.05 ± 39.63 mg vs. 51.14 ± 42.59 mg of diclofenac, p = 0.004) and reduced NRS scores at 12 hours (0.55 ± 1.224 vs. 1.86 ± 1.885, p = 0.01) as compared to Group SES. Conclusion The ESP block is an effective regional anesthetic technique for the provision of postoperative analgesia in patients undergoing MRM. The DES block provided better quality of analgesia compared with the SES block.
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.