SynthesisCurrent pain and headache reports2026
Erector Spinae Plane Block vs. Intercostal Nerve Block for Pain Management in Thoracic Surgeries and Chest Wall Traumas: A Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Current pain and headache reports, 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
backgroundThoracic surgeries and chest wall traumas often result in severe postoperative pain, leading to significant morbidity and prolonged hospital stays. Intercostal nerve blocks have been a common strategy for managing this pain. In this regard, the ESPB is being utilized increasingly as a promising alternative as it offers more extensive pain relief and has a better safety profile.
objectiveA meta-analysis comparing analgesic efficacy, measured by pain scores and opioid consumption, as well as hospital length of stay and time spent under analgesia, between ESPB and ICNB in patients undergoing thoracic surgeries and chest wall trauma was performed.
methodsA systematic literature search was conducted across three databases, identifying 2,141 potential studies. After eliminating duplicates (n = 728), the remaining studies were screened in two stages: initially by reviewing abstracts and titles (n = 1,413), followed by a full-text review of the remaining studies (n = 10). These selected studies assessed postoperative pain scores and opioid consumption. Pain was measured using the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) at 1 h, 24 h, and 48 h postoperatively, while opioid consumption was quantified in intravenous morphine milligram equivalents at 24 and 48 h.
resultsThe ESPB demonstrated significantly lower pain scores at 1 h (P < 0.00001), 24 h (P < 0.00001), and 48 h (P = 0.0008) postoperatively compared to the ICNB. Postoperative opioid consumption, measured in intravenous morphine milligram equivalents at 24 h (P = 0.10) and 48 h (P = 0.20) showed no significant difference between the two groups. Additionally, there were no significant differences observed in hospital stay duration (P = 0.06) or time spent under analgesia (P = 0.33).
conclusionWhile ESPB provides superior pain relief at all measured time points postoperatively, there were no significant differences in postoperative opioid consumption, hospital stay, or time under analgesia between ESPB and ICNB. Both techniques effectively manage thoracic pain, but ESPB offers enhanced analgesic effects. Further research is necessary to refine these techniques and establish clearer guidelines for their use in specific clinical contexts.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42747639What 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.