ReviewBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Psoas Compartment Block Versus Medial Branch Block for Low Back Pain: A Narrative Review of Anatomical Targets, Clinical Evidence, and Patient Selection.
Review in Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland), 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLow back pain (LBP) remains the leading global cause of years lived with disability, and image-guided nerve blocks occupy a central position in its diagnostic and therapeutic pathway. Two paraspinal targets separated by only a few centimetres of tissue address entirely different neural territories: the medial branch of the lumbar dorsal ramus, addressed by the medial branch block (MBB), and the ventral rami of L1-L4 that form the lumbar plexus within psoas major, addressed by the psoas compartment block (PCB). Despite this anatomical proximity, the two techniques have matured within largely separate literatures-interventional pain medicine for the MBB and regional anaesthesia for the PCB-and have never been compared head-to-head in a randomised trial.
methodsThis narrative review searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, the Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar to 1 August 2026 and synthesises evidence on the anatomical rationale, technical performance, effectiveness, and safety of both blocks as they apply to patients presenting with LBP.
resultsThe MBB is supported by extensive diagnostic-accuracy data and guideline endorsement for facet-mediated axial pain, but requires controlled blocks to constrain false-positive rates and confers only short-lived therapeutic benefit. The PCB reliably produces dense lumbar plexus analgesia and has a well-defined perioperative role, yet direct evidence in chronic LBP is confined to small series, and its complication profile-including epidural spread and retroperitoneal haematoma-is materially more demanding.
conclusionsWe propose a phenotype-driven selection framework in which the MBB serves posterior-element axial pain while the PCB is reserved for plexus-mediated, hip-spine overlap, and perioperative indications, and we outline the comparative studies required to test it.
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.