Quadratus lumborum block for postoperative pain management in patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The use of quadratus lumborum nerve blocks (QLB) for pain control following elective total hip arthroplasty (THA) has increased substantially in recent years. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare outcomes from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) utilising QLBs following elective THA. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched for RCTs perioperative QLBs for THA. Quantitative synthesis was conducted for pain scores, opioid consumption and adverse events. RESULTS: A total of 7 RCTs with 429 patients undergoing THA were included. No differences in pain scores were demonstrated between QLBs and control interventions. Subgroup analysis demonstrated no differences between QLBs and sham procedures or active comparators. No differences in postoperative opioid consumption between QLB and control interventions was found. In trials reporting adverse events, they were rare and similar between groups. Overall, the certainty of the evidence was graded as low or very low. CONCLUSIONS: The current literature suggests that a QLB for THA does not reduce pain or opioid consumption compared to sham or active comparators.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".