Trial reportDrug design, development and therapy2026
Ultrasound-Guided Infraspinatus-Teres Minor Interfascial Block versus Interscalene Brachial Plexus Block for Analgesia After Arthroscopic Shoulder Surgery: A Randomized Non-Inferiority Clinical Trial.
Trial report in Drug design, development and therapy, 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.
- Temporal Analgesic Heterogeneity Behind the Apparent Non-Inferiority of Infraspinatus-Teres Minor Interfascial Block [Letter].Drug design, development and therapy · 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
Background: This randomized non-inferiority trial was designed to verify whether ultrasound-guided infraspinatus-teres minor interfascial block (ITMB) could produce non-inferior postoperative analgesia in adult patients undergoing arthroscopic shoulder surgery compared with ultrasound-guided interscalene brachial plexus block (ISB), while also comparing the early respiratory safety profiles and postoperative adverse events of the two techniques. Methods: This trial adopted a two-arm parallel-group design with blinding for participants and all outcome assessors. A total of 82 eligible patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either ITMB (n=41) or ISB (n=41) with 25 mL 0.375% ropivacaine for each nerve block. Two participants in the ITMB group were excluded from the per-protocol (PP) analysis due to intraoperative conversion to open surgery and unplanned intensive care unit admission, leaving 39 ITMB patients and 41 ISB patients for primary PP analysis; intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis covering all 82 randomized patients was additionally conducted to validate robustness. The primary prespecified outcome was 24-hour postoperative total oxycodone consumption, with a predefined non-inferiority margin of -5 mg (ISB minus ITMB). Non-inferiority was established if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the between-group mean difference was no less than -5 mg. Secondary endpoints comprised the maximum 11-point resting NRS pain score within 24 h, incidence of rebound pain, and rescue analgesia requirements. Safety endpoints included dyspnea, diaphragmatic paralysis, Horner's syndrome, and postoperative nausea and vomiting. Results: PP analysis showed the mean 24-hour oxycodone consumption was 11.26 (SD 4.38) mg in the ISB group (95% CI 9.89 to 12.65) versus 10.92 (SD 3.48) mg in the ITMB group (95% CI 9.79 to 12.05), with a between-group mean difference of 0.34 mg (95% CI -1.42 to 2.11, Conclusion: Ultrasound-guided ITMB provided non-inferior 24-hour postoperative opioid analgesia compared with ISB and reduced the incidence of early hemidiaphragmatic paralysis in patients undergoing arthroscopic shoulder surgery. The comparable total 24-hour oxycodone consumption reflected distinct time-dependent analgesic profiles, with ISB providing greater analgesic benefit during the early postoperative period, whereas ITMB demonstrated more sustained analgesic effects during the later postoperative period. Trial Registration: This trial was registered at the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2400084716). Date of registration: May 23, 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.