Transversus thoracic muscle plane block for pain during cardiac surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVE: The role of transversus thoracic muscle plane blocks (TTMPBs) during cardiac surgery is controversial. We conducted a systematic review to establish the effectiveness of this procedure. DESIGN: Systematic review. We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, CENTRAL, WanFang Data, and the China National Knowledge Infrastructure to June 2022, and followed the GRADE approach to evaluate the certainty of evidence. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Eligible studies enrolled adult patients scheduled to undergo cardiac surgery and randomized them to receive a TTMPB or no block/sham block. MAIN RESULTS: Nine trials that enrolled 454 participants were included. Compared to no block/sham block, moderate certainty evidence found that TTMPB probably reduces postoperative pain at rest at 12 h [weighted mean difference (WMD) -1.51 cm on a 10 cm visual analogue scale for pain, 95% CI -2.02 to -1.00; risk difference (RD) for achieving mild pain or less (≤3 cm), 41%, 95% CI 17-65) and 24 h (WMD -1.07 cm, 95% CI -1.83 to -0.32; RD 26%, 95% CI 9-37). Moderate certainty evidence also supported that TTMPB probably reduces pain during movement at 12 h (WMD -3.42 cm, 95% CI -4.47 to -2.37; RD 46%, 95% CI 12-80) and at 24 h (WMD -1.73 cm, 95% CI -3.24 to -0.21; RD 32%, 95% CI 5-59), intraoperative opioid use [WMD -28 milligram morphine equivalent (MME), 95% CI -42 to -15], postoperative opioid consumption (WMD -17 MME, 95% CI -29 to -5), postoperative nausea and vomiting (absolute risk difference 255 less per 1000 persons, 95% CI 140-314), and intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (WMD -13 h, 95% CI -21 to -6). CONCLUSION: Moderate certainty evidence showed TTMPB during cardiac surgery probably reduces postoperative pain at rest and with movement, opioid consumption, ICU length of stay, and the incidence of nausea and vomiting.
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 | 0.012 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.029 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".