Erector spinae plane block vs. peri‐articular injection for pain control after arthroscopic shoulder surgery: a randomised controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interscalene brachial plexus block is the standard regional analgesic technique for shoulder surgery. Given its adverse effects, alternative techniques have been explored. Reports suggest that the erector spinae plane block may potentially provide effective analgesia following shoulder surgery. However, its analgesic efficacy for shoulder surgery compared with placebo or local anaesthetic infiltration has never been established. We conducted a randomised controlled trial to compare the analgesic efficacy of pre-operative T2 erector spinae plane block with peri-articular infiltration at the end of surgery. Sixty-two patients undergoing arthroscopic shoulder repair were randomly assigned to receive active erector spinae plane block with saline peri-articular injection (n = 31) or active peri-articular injection with saline erector spinae plane block (n = 31) in a blinded double-dummy design. Primary outcome was resting pain score in recovery. Secondary outcomes included pain scores with movement; opioid use; patient satisfaction; adverse effects in hospital; and outcomes at 24 h and 1 month. There was no difference in pain scores in recovery, with a median difference (95%CI) of 0.6 (-1.9-3.1), p = 0.65. Median postoperative oral morphine equivalent utilisation was significantly higher in the erector spinae plane group (21 mg vs. 12 mg; p = 0.028). Itching was observed in 10% of patients who received erector spinae plane block and there was no difference in the incidence of significant nausea and vomiting. Patient satisfaction scores, and pain scores and opioid use at 24 h were similar. At 1 month, six (peri-articular injection) and eight (erector spinae plane block) patients reported persistent pain. Erector spinae plane block was not superior to peri-articular injection for arthroscopic shoulder 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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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".