Practical Review of Abdominal and Breast Regional Analgesia for Plastic Surgeons: Evidence and Techniques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Regional analgesia has been increasing in popularity due to its opioid- sparing analgesic effects and utility in multimodal analgesia strategies. Several regional techniques have been used in plastic surgery; however, there is a lack of consensus on the indications and the comparative efficacy of these blocks. The goal of this review is to provide evidence-based recommendations on the most relevant types of interfascial plane blocks for abdominal and breast surgery. A systematic search of the PUBMED, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases was performed to identify the evidence associated with the different interfascial plane blocks used in plastic surgery. The search included all studies from inception to March 2020. A total of 126 studies were included and used in the synthesis of the information presented in this review. There is strong evidence for using the transversus abdominis plane blocks in both abdominoplasties as well as abdominally-based microvascular breast reconstruction as evidenced by a significant reduction in post-operative pain and opioid consumption. Pectoralis (I and II), serratus anterior, and erector spinae plane blocks all provide good pain control in breast surgeries. Finally, the serratus anterior plane block can be used as primary block or an adjunct to the pectoralis blocks for a wider analgesia coverage of the breast. All the reviewed blocks are safe and easy to administer. Interfascial plane blocks are effective and safe modalities used to reduce pain and opioid consumption after abdominal and breast plastic surgery.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".