ArticlePeerJ2026
Erector spinae plane block for pain management in lumbar percutaneous vertebroplasty: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.
Article in PeerJ, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Percutaneous vertebroplasty (PVP) often causes moderate-to-severe intraoperative pain, with current local anesthesia methods providing limited relief. The erector spinae plane block (ESPB) has shown promise in regional analgesia but lacks evidence for PVP. This study aims to test the hypothesis that a preoperative bilateral ESPB provides superior intraoperative analgesia compared to local anesthetic infiltration alone in patients undergoing lumbar PVP. The primary objective is to compare the incidence of moderate-to-severe pain between the two groups. Methods: This single-center, randomized, single-blind, parallel-group trial will enroll 66 patients undergoing lumbar PVP, who will be randomized to ESPB (20 mL 0.25% ropivacaine bilaterally) or local anesthesia (1% lidocaine). Primary outcome: incidence of moderate-to-severe pain (VAS > 3). Secondary outcomes will include maximum pain scores, patient/surgeon satisfaction, rescue analgesia, time to first mobilization, incidence of adverse events, anesthesia preparation time, and total operating-room occupancy time. Discussion: The study aims to validate ESPB's efficacy in PVP, potentially reducing opioid use and improving recovery. Strengths include CONSORT adherence and pragmatic outcomes, though single-center design and limited follow-up may affect generalizability. Conclusion: This trial will determine whether ESPB offers superior analgesia for PVP, guiding future pain management strategies. If proven effective, ESPB could be adopted as a key component of multimodal analgesia for vertebral augmentation, potentially leading to reduced opioid dependence, improved patient comfort, and faster recovery. The results will guide future evidence-based pain management strategies for these common procedures.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.