Loading
Life sciences · Review
BMC Anesthesiology · October 12, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Review.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
BACKGROUND: Surgery remains the cornerstone of management in breast cancer patients. Regional anesthesia techniques, such as the erector spinae plane block (ESPB), have emerged as adjuncts to standard therapy for postoperative pain control. METHODS: Studies comparing ESPB and standard procedure of general anesthesia and opioids were included. Primary outcomes were postoperative pain scores, analgesia duration, and postoperative morphine consumption. RESULTS: VAS pain scores were significantly reduced with the ESPB group. Similarly, longer analgesia duration (MD 7.03, 95%CI 4.92, 9.14, P < 0.0001), and lower postoperative morphine consumption (MD -5.77; 95% CI, -7.89, -3.65; P < 0.0001) were observed in the ESPB group. NRS pain scores at 24 h, intraoperative fentanyl, and postoperative tramadol consumption also decreased with ESPB. No significant differences were observed for NRS scores at 12 h. However, heterogeneity was high and most of the included studies had high or unclear risk of bias. CONCLUSION: ESPB may reduce opioid consumption and postoperative pain scores compared to the control groups. However, these results should be taken cautiously, due to the high risk of bias among the included studies and low certainty.