Analgesic Efficacy and Outcomes of Ultrasound-guided Erector Spinae Plane Block in Patients Undergoing Bariatric and Metabolic Surgeries: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Erector spinae plane block (ESPB) has been used as an intervention for providing postoperative analgesia in patients undergoing bariatric and metabolic surgeries. After registering the protocol in PROSPERO, randomized controlled trials and nonrandomized observational studies were searched in various databases till July 2022. The primary outcome was 24-h opioid consumption; the secondary outcomes were intraoperative opioid use, pain scores, time to rescue analgesia, and complications. The risk of bias and Newcastle-Ottawa scale were used to assess the quality of evidence. From the 695 studies identified, 6 studies were selected for analysis. The 24-h opioid consumption was significantly lesser in ESPB group when compared to control (mean difference [MD]: −10.67; 95% confidence interval [CI]: −21.03, −0.31, I ² = 99%). The intraoperative opioid consumption was significantly less in the ESPB group (MD: −17.75; 95% CI: −20.36, −15.13, I ² = 31%). The time to rescue analgesia was significantly more in the ESPB group (MD: 114.36; CI: 90.42, 138.30, I ² = 99%). Although pain scores were significantly less at 6 and 24 h in ESPB group (MD: −2.00, 95% CI: −2.49, −1.51; I ² = 0% and MD: −0.48; 95% CI: −0.72, −0.24; I ² = 48%), at zero and 12 h, the pain scores were comparable (MD: −1.53, 95% CI: −3.06, −0.00, I ² = 97% and MD: −0.80; 95% CI: −1.80, 0.20, I ² = 88%). Bilateral ESPB provides opioid-sparing analgesia and better pain scores when compared to control. These results should be interpreted with caution due to high heterogeneity among the included studies.
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 | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".