ArticlePerioperative medicine (London, England)2026
Retrolaminar versus erector spinae plane block for enhanced recovery after cesarean section: a retrospective study.
Article in Perioperative medicine (London, England), 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe global rise in cesarean section (CS) rates has made effective, opioid-sparing postoperative analgesia a clinical priority. The erector spinae plane block (ESPB) and retrolaminar block (RLB) are trunk blocks increasingly incorporated into multimodal analgesia protocols; however, comparative evidence between these two techniques following CS remains limited.
methodsThis retrospective, single-center study analyzed adult women undergoing elective CS under spinal anesthesia, without the use of general anesthesia. The primary outcome was total tramadol consumption within 24 h postoperatively. Secondary outcomes included time to first rescue analgesia, VAS scores at 1, 6, 12, and 24 h, 24-h ObsQoR-11 T score, time to discharge, and incidence of adverse events.
resultsOf 126 screened patients, 122 were analyzed (ESPB n = 64; RLB n = 58). ESPB significantly reduced 24-h tramadol consumption compared with RLB (130.94 mg vs. 141.9 mg; p = 0.001) and prolonged the time to first rescue analgesia (7.86 ± 1.50 vs. 6.78 ± 1.28 h; p = 0.001). VAS scores were significantly lower in the ESPB group at 6 h (p = 0.005) and 12 h (p < 0.001), with no differences at 1 or 24 h. ObsQoR-11 T scores and discharge times were comparable between groups. Adverse events were infrequent; hypotension occurred in 10.9% of ESPB patients and 5.2% of RLB patients (p = 0.246).
conclusionsIn elective CS, ESPB provided superior early postoperative analgesia and reduced opioid consumption compared to RLB. ESPB appears to be a rational choice when prolonged analgesia and opioid sparing are prioritized in the early postoperative period, whereas RLB may serve as a reliable alternative in settings emphasizing technical simplicity and hemodynamic stability.
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.