Skip to main content
Download PDF
Download ePub

Comparison of erector spinae plane block with paravertebral block for thoracoscopic surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery volume 18, Article number: 300 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Introduction

The efficacy of erector spinae plane block versus paravertebral block for thoracoscopic surgery remains controversial. We conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore the impact of erector spinae plane block versus paravertebral block on thoracoscopic surgery.

Methods

We have searched PubMed, EMbase, Web of science, EBSCO, and Cochrane library databases through March 2022 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effect of erector spinae plane block versus paravertebral block on thoracoscopic surgery. This meta-analysis is performed using the random-effect model.

Results

Seven RCTs are included in the meta-analysis. Overall, compared with erector spinae plane block for thoracoscopic surgery, paravertebral block results in significantly reduced pain scores at 12 h (SMD = 1.12; 95% CI 0.42 to 1.81; P = 0.002) and postoperative anesthesia consumption (SMD = 1.27; 95% CI 0.30 to 2.23; P = 0.01), but these two groups have similar pain scores at 1-2 h (SMD = 1.01; 95% CI − 0.13 to 2.15; P 0.08) and 4–6 h (SMD = 0.33; 95% CI − 0.16 to 0.81; P = 0.19), as well as incidence of nausea and vomiting (OR 0.93; 95% CI 0.38 to 2.29; P = 0.88).

Conclusions

Paravertebral block may be better for the pain relief after thoracoscopic surgery than erector spinae plane block.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Thoracoscopic surgery is a less invasive and traumatic surgical procedure for both minor and major oncological lung surgeries, and it is able to improve post‑operative respiratory function and reduce hospital length of stay [1,2,3]. Thoracoscopic surgery has been widely used to treat various diseases such as esophageal cancer and lung cancer [4,5,6]. However, 25% of patients are estimated to experience moderate‑to‑severe pain after thoracoscopic surgery [7]. Inadequate analgesia delays patient recovery and prolongs the hospital stays.

Due to the limited efficacy and adverse events of current analgesic methods, many kinds of regional anesthesia techniques such as thoracic epidural analgesia and paravertebral block have been developed to alleviate post‑operative pain after thoracoscopic surgery [8, 9]. Erector spinae plane block also obtains widespread application because of simple application and safety [10]. However, the optimal regional anaesthesia technique among erector spinae plane block versus paravertebral block is not well established for thoracoscopic surgery [10,11,12,13,14]. This meta-analysis aims to investigate the efficacy and safety of erector spinae plane block versus paravertebral block for thoracoscopic surgery.

Materials and methods

Ethical approval and patient consent are not required because this is a systematic review and meta-analysis of previously published studies. The systematic review and meta-analysis are conducted and reported in adherence to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) [15, 16].

Search strategy and study selection

Two investigators have independently searched the following databases (inception to March 2022): PubMed, EMbase, Web of science, EBSCO, and Cochrane library databases. The electronic search strategy is conducted using the following keywords: “erector spinae plane block” OR “ESPB” AND versus “paravertebral block” OR “PVB” AND “thoracoscopic” OR “thoracoscopy”. We also check the reference lists of the screened full-text studies to identify other potentially eligible trials.

The inclusive selection criteria are as follows: (1) population: patients undergoing thoracoscopic surgery; (2) intervention: erector spinae plane block; (3) comparison: paravertebral block; (4) study design: RCT. We exclude patients with spinal deformities, infection at or near the puncture site, abnormal coagulation, a history of allergy to local anesthetics, a history of psychiatric disorders or inability to cooperate.

Data extraction and outcome measures

We have extracted the following information: author, number of patients, age, male, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA, I/II) and detail methods in each group etc. Data have been extracted independently by two investigators, and discrepancies are resolved by consensus. We also contact the corresponding author to obtain the data when necessary. The primary outcomes are pain scores at 1–2 h, 4–6 h and 12 h. Secondary outcomes include postoperative anesthesia consumption, nausea, and vomiting. Pain scores were evaluated by visual analogue score (VAS).

Quality assessment in individual studies

Methodological quality of the included studies is independently evaluated using the modified Jadad scale [16, 17]. There are 3 items for Jadad scale: randomization (0–2 points), blinding (0–2 points), dropouts and withdrawals (0–1 points). The score of Jadad Scale varies from 0 to 5 points. An article with Jadad score ≤ 2 is considered to be of low quality. If the Jadad score ≥ 3, the study is thought to be of high quality [18].

Statistical analysis

We estimate the mean difference (MD) or standard mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) for continuous outcomes and odd ratio (OR) with 95%CI for dichotomous outcomes. The random-effect model is used when encountering significant heterogeneity, otherwise fixed-effect model is applied. Heterogeneity is reported using the I2 statistic, and I2 > 50% indicates significant heterogeneity [19]. Whenever significant heterogeneity is present, we search for potential sources of heterogeneity via omitting one study in turn for the meta-analysis or performing subgroup analysis. Publication bias is not evaluated because of the limited number (< 10) of included studies. All statistical analyses are performed using Review Manager Version 5.3 (The Cochrane Collaboration, Software Update, Oxford, UK).

Quality of evidence

The quality of evidence for each outcome was evaluated based on the methodological quality and the confidence in the results, and it was assessed by GRADE recommendations as high quality, moderate quality, low quality, or very low quality [20].

Results

Literature search, study characteristics and quality assessment

A detailed flowchart of the search and selection results is shown in Fig. 1. 276 potentially relevant articles are identified initially. 92 duplicates and 174 papers after checking the titles/abstracts were excluded. Three studies were removed because of the study design and seven RCTs were ultimately included in the meta-analysis [10,11,12,13,14, 21, 22].

Fig. 1
figure 1

Flow diagram of study searching and selection process

Full size image

The baseline characteristics of the seven eligible RCTs in the meta-analysis are summarized in Table 1. The seven studies are published between 2019 and 2022, and total sample size is 411. Erector spinae plane block and paravertebral nerve block were performed by using bupivacaine or ropivacaine. Among the seven studies included here, three studies report pain scores at 1–2 h, 4–6 h and 12 h [10, 12, 22], six studies report postoperative anesthesia consumption [10,11,12,13,14, 21], as well as four studies report nausea and vomiting [10, 11, 14, 22]. Jadad scores of the seven included studies vary from 4 to 5, and all seven studies are considered to have high quality according to quality assessment (Table 2).

Table 1 Characteristics of included studies
Full size table
Table 2 The quality of evidence for each outcome by GRADE recommendations
Full size table

Primary outcomes: pain scores at 1–2 h, 4–6 h and 12 h

The results suggested that compared to paravertebral block for thoracoscopic surgery, erector spinae plane block results in similar pain scores at 1–2 h (very low quality, SMD = 1.01; 95% CI − 0.13 to 2.15; P = 0.08) with significant heterogeneity among the studies (I2 = 95%, heterogeneity P < 0.00001, Fig. 2) and 4–6 h (very low quality, SMD = 0.33; 95% CI − 0.16 to 0.81; P = 0.19) with significant heterogeneity among the studies (I2 = 83%, heterogeneity P = 0.003, Fig. 3), but is associated with significantly higher pain scores at 12 h (low quality, SMD = 1.12; 95% CI 0.42 to 1.81; P = 0.002) with significant heterogeneity among the studies (I2 = 92%, heterogeneity P < 0.00001, Fig. 4).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Forest plot for the meta-analysis of pain scores at 1–2 h

Full size image
Fig. 3
figure 3

Forest plot for the meta-analysis of pain scores at 4–6 h

Full size image
Fig. 4
figure 4

Forest plot for the meta-analysis of pain scores at 12 h

Full size image

Sensitivity analysis

Significant heterogeneity is only observed among the included studies for primary outcomes, but there is still significant heterogeneity when performing sensitivity analysis via omitting one study in turn or subgroup analysis based on anesthetic drugs to detect the heterogeneity (Fig. 5).

Fig. 5
figure 5

Forest plot for the subgroup analysis of pain scores at A 1–2 h, B 4–6 h and C 12 h

Full size image

Secondary outcomes

Erector spinae plane block needs increased postoperative anesthesia consumption (very low quality, SMD = 1.27; 95% CI 0.30 to 2.23; P = 0.01; Fig. 6) than paravertebral block for thoracoscopic surgery, but the incidence of nausea and vomiting is comparable between erector spinae plane block and paravertebral block (moderate quality, OR 0.93; 95% CI 0.38 to 2.29; P = 0.88; Fig. 7).

Fig. 6
figure 6

Forest plot for the meta-analysis of postoperative analgesic consumption

Full size image
Fig. 7
figure 7

Forest plot for the meta-analysis of nausea and vomiting

Full size image

Discussion

Our meta-analysis included seven RCTs and 411 patients. The results suggested that paravertebral block led to substantially reduced pain scores at 12 h and postoperative anesthesia consumption than erector spinae plane block for thoracoscopic surgery, but pain scores at 1–2 h and 4–6 h were similar between two groups.

Many patients still suffer from obvious postoperative pain after thoracoscopic surgery, and needs pharmacologic and regional interventions [23,24,25,26,27,28]. Multimodal analgesia methods has been widely developed and include nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, opioids, patient-controlled analgesia (PCA), infiltration analgesia and thoracal epidural block [29]. There are many nerve block methods that are developed for thoracoscopic surgery. Thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA) is a commonly used method for analgesia following thoracotomy, but results in high risk of complications [30]. Both erector spinae plane block and paravertebral nerve block demonstrate important potential in managing postoperative pain for thoracoscopic surgery [10, 11, 31, 32].

Regarding the sensitivity analysis, significant heterogeneity is seen when performing the analysis by omitting one study in turn or subgroup analysis based on anesthetic drugs. It may be caused by several factors including different analgesic drugs (i.e. ropivacaine and bupivacaine) and various concentrations (e.g. ropivacaine 0.25% and 0.5%). In addition, the detail methods and procedures of thoracoscopic surgery are different due to various diseases, and may produce different baseline pain intensity.

Our results found that paravertebral block showed significantly better analgesic efficacy than erector spinae plane block for thoracoscopic surgery. The possible reasons are speculated as, paravertebral block is a nerve block technique by which local anesthetic is injected directly into the thoracic paravertebral space to block the thoracic spinal nerve and the branches as well as the sympathetic trunk, and the local anesthetic could spread cranially and caudally through the loose connective tissue of the thoracic paravertebral space [33], as well as laterally to the intercostal and epidural spaces [34]. These can provide analgesia comparable to that of the thoracic segmental epidural block [11].

In addition, paravertebral block and erector spinae plane block demonstrated similar incidence of nausea and vomiting in our meta-analysis. There were no adverse events such as pneumothorax, nerve injury or local hematoma [10]. This meta-analysis has several potential limitations. Firstly, our analysis is based on only seven RCTs, and more RCTs with larger sample size should be conducted to explore this issue. Next, different types, concentrations, and methods of anesthetic drugs in included RCTs may have an influence on the pooling results. Finally, different thoracoscopic surgeries produce various baseline pain intensity.

Conclusions

Paravertebral block may be superior to erector spinae plane block for pain control after thoracoscopic surgery.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.

Abbreviations

RCTs:

Randomized controlled trials

MDs:

Mean differences

CIs:

Confidence intervals

RRs:

Risk ratios

References

  1. Guo W, Ma X, Yang S, Zhu X, Qin W, Xiang J, Lerut T, Li H. Combined thoracoscopic-laparoscopic esophagectomy versus open esophagectomy: a meta-analysis of outcomes. Surg Endosc. 2016;30(9):3873–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Sun K, Liu D, Chen J, Yu S, Bai Y, Chen C, Yao Y, Yu L, Yan M. Moderate-severe postoperative pain in patients undergoing video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery: a retrospective study. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):795.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Morris BN, Henshaw DS, Royster RL. Survey of pain management in thoracoscopic surgery. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2018;32(4):1756–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Murakawa T, Sato H, Okumura S, Nakajima J, Horio H, Ozeki Y, Asamura H, Ikeda N, Otsuka H, Matsuguma H, Yoshino I, Chida M, Nakayama M, Iizasa T, Okumura M, Shiono S, Kato R, Iida T, Matsutani N, Kawamura M, Sakao Y, Funai K, Furuyashiki G, Akiyama H, Sugiyama S, Kanauchi N, Shiraishi Y. J. Metastatic Lung Tumor Study Group of, Thoracoscopic surgery versus open surgery for lung metastases of colorectal cancer: a multi-institutional retrospective analysis using propensity score adjustmentdagger. Eur J Cardio-Thoracic Surg. 2017;51(6):1157–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Kinjo Y, Kurita N, Nakamura F, Okabe H, Tanaka E, Kataoka Y, Itami A, Sakai Y, Fukuhara S. Effectiveness of combined thoracoscopic-laparoscopic esophagectomy: comparison of postoperative complications and midterm oncological outcomes in patients with esophageal cancer. Surg Endos. 2012;26(2):381–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Pham TH, Perry KA, Dolan JP, Schipper P, Sukumar M, Sheppard BC, Hunter JG. Comparison of perioperative outcomes after combined thoracoscopic-laparoscopic esophagectomy and open Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy. Am J Surg. 2010;199(5):594–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Sen Y, Xiyang H, Yu H. Effect of thoracic paraspinal block-propofol intravenous general anesthesia on VEGF and TGF-β in patients receiving radical resection of lung cancer. Medicine. 2019;98(47): e18088.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Kang K, Meng X, Li B, Yuan J, Tian E, Zhang J. Effect of thoracic paravertebral nerve block on the early postoperative rehabilitation in patients undergoing thoracoscopic radical lung cancer surgery. World J Surg Oncol. 2020;18(1):1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Forero M, Adhikary SD, Lopez H, Tsui C, Chin KJ. The erector spinae plane block: a novel analgesic technique in thoracic neuropathic pain. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2016;41(5):621–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Zhang JW, Feng XY, Yang J, Wang ZH, Wang Z, Bai LP. Ultrasound-guided single thoracic paravertebral nerve block and erector spinae plane block for perioperative analgesia in thoracoscopic pulmonary lobectomy: a randomized controlled trial. Insights Imaging. 2022;13(1):16.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Fu Z, Zhang Y, Zhou Y, Li Z, Wang K, Li H, Jiang W, Liu Z, Cao X. A comparison of paravertebral block, erector spinae plane block and the combination of erector spinae plane block and paravertebral block for post-operative analgesia after video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery: a randomised controlled trial. J Minimal Access Surg. 2022;18(2):241–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Turhan Ö, Sivrikoz N, Sungur Z, Duman S, Özkan B, Şentürk M. Thoracic paravertebral block achieves better pain control than erector spinae plane block and intercostal nerve block in thoracoscopic surgery: a randomized study. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2021;35(10):2920–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Zhao H, Xin L, Feng Y. The effect of preoperative erector spinae plane vs. paravertebral blocks on patient-controlled oxycodone consumption after video-assisted thoracic surgery: a prospective randomized, blinded, non-inferiority study. J Clin Anesthesia. 2020;62:109737.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Çiftçi B, Ekinci M, Çelik EC, Tukaç İC, Gölboyu BE, Günlüoǧlu MZ, Atalay YO. Ultrasound-guided erector spinae plane block and thoracic paravertebral block for postoperative analgesia management following video-assisted thoracic surgery: a prospective, randomized, controlled study. JARSS. 2020;28(3):170–8.

    Google Scholar 

  15. D. Moher, A. Liberati, J. Tetzlaff, D.G. Altman, P. Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(10):1006–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. He B, Zhao J-Q, Zhang M-Z, Quan Z-X. Zoledronic acid and fracture risk: a meta-analysis of 12 randomized controlled trials. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2021;25:1564–73.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJM, Gavaghan DJ, McQuay HJ. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials. 1996;17(1):1–12.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Kjaergard LL, Villumsen J, Gluud C. Reported methodologic quality and discrepancies between large and small randomized trials in meta-analyses. Ann Intern Med. 2001;135(11):982–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2002;21(11):1539–58.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P, Schunemann HJ, Group GW. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2008;336(7650):924–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Chen N, Qiao Q, Chen R, Xu Q, Zhang Y, Tian Y. The effect of ultrasound-guided intercostal nerve block, single-injection erector spinae plane block and multiple-injection paravertebral block on postoperative analgesia in thoracoscopic surgery: A randomized, double-blinded, clinical trial. J Clin Anesth. 2020;59:106–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Taketa Y, Irisawa Y, Fujitani T. Comparison of ultrasound-guided erector spinae plane block and thoracic paravertebral block for postoperative analgesia after video-assisted thoracic surgery: a randomized controlled non-inferiority clinical trial. Region Anesthesia Pain Med. 2019.

  23. Davies RG, Myles PS, Graham JM. A comparison of the analgesic efficacy and side-effects of paravertebral vs epidural blockade for thoracotomy–a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. Br J Anaesth. 2006;96(4):418–26.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. J.F. Sztain, R.A. Gabriel, E.T. Said, Thoracic Epidurals are Associated With Decreased Opioid Consumption Compared to Surgical Infiltration of Liposomal Bupivacaine Following Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery for Lobectomy: A Retrospective Cohort Analysis, Journal of cardiothoracic and vascular anesthesia (2018).

  25. Adhikary SD, Pruett A, Forero M, Thiruvenkatarajan V. Erector spinae plane block as an alternative to epidural analgesia for post-operative analgesia following video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery: a case study and a literature review on the spread of local anaesthetic in the erector spinae plane. Indian J Anaesth. 2018;62(1):75–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Wang X, Wang K, Wang B, Jiang T, Xu Z, Wang F, Yu J. Effect of oxycodone combined with dexmedetomidine for intravenous patient-controlled analgesia after video-assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2016;30(4):1015–21.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Zhang Y, He B, Zhao J, Zhang M, Ren Q, Zhang W, Xu S, Quan Z, Ou Y. Addition of celebrex and pregabalin to ropivacaine for posterior spinal surgery: a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial. Am J Rhinol Allergy. 2021;15:735–42.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Zhao J, Zhang S, Li X, He B, Ou Y, Jiang D. Comparison of minimally invasive and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar disc herniation: a retrospective cohort study. Med Sci Monit: Int Med J Exp Clin Res. 2018;24:8693–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Piccioni F, Segat M, Falini S, Umari M, Putina O, Cavaliere L, Ragazzi R, Massullo D, Taurchini M, Del Naja C, Droghetti A. Enhanced recovery pathways in thoracic surgery from Italian VATS Group: perioperative analgesia protocols. J Thorac Dis. 2018;10(Suppl 4):S555-s563.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Khoshbin E, Al-Jilaihawi AN, Scott NB, Prakash D, Kirk AJ. An audit of pain control pathways following video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery. Innovations (Philadelphia, Pa). 2011;6(4):248–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Pişkin Ö, Gökçe M, Altınsoy B, Baytar Ç, Aydın BG, Okyay RD, Küçükosman G, Bollucuoğlu K, Ayoğlu H. Effects of continuous erector spinae plane block on postoperative pain in video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery: a randomized controlled study. Gen Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2022;70(1):64–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Liu L, Ni XX, Zhang LW, Zhao K, Xie H, Zhu J. Effects of ultrasound-guided erector spinae plane block on postoperative analgesia and plasma cytokine levels after uniportal VATS: a prospective randomized controlled trial. J Anesth. 2021;35(1):3–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Albokrinov AA, Fesenko UA. Spread of dye after single thoracolumbar paravertebral injection in infants. A cadaveric study. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2014;31(6):305–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Richardson J, Lönnqvist PA, Naja Z. Bilateral thoracic paravertebral block: potential and practice. Br J Anaesth. 2011;106(2):164–71.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

Not applicable.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Fenghua District People’s Hospital of Ningbo, Zhejiang, China

    Jinghua Pang, Jiawen You, Yong Chen & Chengjun Song

Authors
  1. Jinghua Pang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jiawen You
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yong Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Chengjun Song
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

JP and CS conducted the design, study planning, data analysis and data interpretation. JY and YC wrote and revised the article. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chengjun Song.

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pang, J., You, J., Chen, Y. et al. Comparison of erector spinae plane block with paravertebral block for thoracoscopic surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Cardiothorac Surg 18, 300 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13019-023-02343-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13019-023-02343-w

Keywords

Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery

ISSN: 1749-8090

Contact us