Erector spinae plane block did not improve postoperative pain-related outcomes and recovery after video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery : a randomised controlled double-blinded multi-center trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: There is a sizable niche for a minimally invasive analgesic technique that could facilitate ambulatory video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS). Our study aimed to determine the analgesic potential of a single-shot erector spinae plane (ESP) block for VATS. The primary objective was the total hydromorphone consumption with patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) 24 h after surgery. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, controlled, double-blind study with patients scheduled for VATS in two major university-affiliated hospital centres. We randomized 52 patients into two groups: a single-shot ESP block using bupivacaine or an ESP block with normal saline (control). We administered a preoperative and postoperative (24 h) quality of recovery (QoR-15) questionnaire and assessed postoperative pain using a verbal numerical rating scale (VNRS) score. We evaluated the total standardized intraoperative fentanyl administration, total postoperative hydromorphone consumption (PCA; primary endpoint), and the incidence of adverse effects. RESULTS: There was no difference in the primary objective, hydromorphone consumption at 24 h (7.6 (4.4) mg for the Bupivacaine group versus 8.1 (4.2) mg for the Control group). Secondary objectives and incidence of adverse events were not different between the two groups at any time during the first 24 h following surgery. CONCLUSION: Our multi-centre randomized, controlled, double-blinded study found no advantage of an ESP block over placebo for VATS for opioid consumption, pain, or QoR-15 scores. Further studies are ongoing to establish the benefits of using a denser block (single-shot paravertebral with a continuous ESP block), which may provide a better quality of analgesia.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".