An Updated Meta‐Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials Comparing the Analgesic Efficacy of Intercostal Nerve Block Versus Erector Spinae Plane Block in Thoracic Surgery
5 affiliations
- 1Department of Medicine and Surgery Karachi Institute of Medical Sciences Karachi Sindh Pakistan
- 2Department of Medicine Karachi Medical and Dental College Karachi Sindh Pakistan duhs.edu.pk
- 3Department of Medicine Foundation University Medical College Islamabad Pakistan fui.edu.pk
- 4Department of Medicine Allama Iqbal Medical College Lahore Pakistan aimc.edu.pk
- 5Department of Medicine Kabul University of Medical Sciences “Abu Ali Ibn Sina” Kabul Afghanistan duhs.edu.pk
Abstract
Background: ESPB, an ultrasound‐guided fascial plane block, gained considerable attention as a regional anaesthetic because of its longer duration of action, favourable safety profile, and multidermatomal analgesic effect. ICNB, however, is associated with a relatively short duration of action, often requiring repeated dosing and adjunctive systemic analgesics.
Methods: The methodology of this meta‐analysis adhered to the PRISMA 2020 guidelines and included randomized controlled trials comparing ESPB with ICNB in thoracoscopic surgery. A systematic PubMed, Cochrane, and ClinicalTrials.gov search was performed that reviewed the publications available till March 16, 2025. Studies were screened, data were extracted, and two reviewers independently evaluated the risk of bias using the Cochrane ROB 2 tool. Dynamic pain at 48 h was the primary outcome; the secondary outcome was analgesic use. Standardized mean differences (SMDs) or mean differences (MDs), as appropriate, with 95% confidence intervals were computed. Version 5.4 of Review Manager (RevMan) was used to process the statistical analysis, with a random‐effects model where necessary.
Results: We identified 444 records, out of which 6 randomized controlled trials were part of this meta‐analysis, totalling 353 cases: 176 being part of the ESPB group, while the remaining 177 constituted the ICNB group. For the principal outcome of dynamic pain score at 48 h postoperatively, combined analysis from five studies (n = 295) revealed a statistically significant lowered pain score with ESPB in contrast to ICNB (SMD = −0.34, 95% CI: −0.57 to −0.10, p = 0.004; I 2 = 0%). For postoperative analgesic use, all six studies (n = 353) data showed insignificant group difference (MD = 0.14, 95% CI: −1.04 to 1.32, p = 0.81; I 2 = 57%).
Conclusion: This study suggests that ESPB contributed to a reduction in pain scores at 48 h after thoracoscopic surgery compared with ICNB, yet both methods exhibited equivalent postoperative analgesic consumption. These findings show that ESPB can be a preferable option for prolonged postoperative analgesia; however, additional well‐designed studies are needed to corroborate the evidence base.
Related
- Comparison of analgesic efficacy and safety between liposomal bupivacaine and ropivacaine for paravertebral block in patients undergoing thoracoscopic lung tumor surgery: a prospective double-blind randomized controlled trial
- Comparative evaluation of the antipyretic and analgesic efficacy and safety of a fast-release paracetamol 650 mg formulation vs. conventional paracetamol formulations in adults with acute febrile or febrile-pain conditions: a multicenter randomized controlled trial
- Effects of ultrasound-guided superior trunk block with different ropivacaine volumes on hemidiaphragmatic paralysis and analgesic efficacy in patients undergoing arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: a study protocol for a prospective randomized controlled trial {1a}
- Liposomal bupivacaine versus ropivacaine thoracic paravertebral block for thoracoscopic atrial septal defect repair: analgesic efficacy and cardiac biomarker outcomes in a single-center, assessor-blinded, randomized trial
- Erector spinae plane block added to intercostal nerve block versus intercostal nerve block alone for postoperative analgesia in video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery: A randomized controlled trial
BibTeX
@article{faheem2026updated,
title = {{An Updated Meta‐Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials Comparing the Analgesic Efficacy of Intercostal Nerve Block Versus Erector Spinae Plane Block in Thoracic Surgery}},
author = {Muhammad Shaheer Bin Faheem and Syeda Umbreen Munir and Kanz Ul Eman Maryam and Sabahat Ul Ain Munir Abbasi and Sumaya Samadi},
journal = {Anesthesiology Research and Practice},
year = {2026},
month = nov,
doi = {10.1155/anrp/7833175},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1155/anrp/7833175},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - An Updated Meta‐Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials Comparing the Analgesic Efficacy of Intercostal Nerve Block Versus Erector Spinae Plane Block in Thoracic Surgery
AU - Muhammad Shaheer Bin Faheem
AU - Syeda Umbreen Munir
AU - Kanz Ul Eman Maryam
AU - Sabahat Ul Ain Munir Abbasi
AU - Sumaya Samadi
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/11/03
JO - Anesthesiology Research and Practice
DO - 10.1155/anrp/7833175
UR - https://doi.org/10.1155/anrp/7833175
AB - Background: ESPB, an ultrasound‐guided fascial plane block, gained considerable attention as a regional anaesthetic because of its longer duration of action, favourable safety profile, and multidermatomal analgesic effect. ICNB, however, is associated with a relatively short duration of action, often requiring repeated dosing and adjunctive systemic analgesics. Methods: The methodology of this meta‐analysis adhered to the PRISMA 2020 guidelines and included randomized controlled trials comparing ESPB with ICNB in thoracoscopic surgery. A systematic PubMed, Cochrane, and ClinicalTrials.gov search was performed that reviewed the publications available till March 16, 2025. Studies were screened, data were extracted, and two reviewers independently evaluated the risk of bias using the Cochrane ROB 2 tool. Dynamic pain at 48 h was the primary outcome; the secondary outcome was analgesic use. Standardized mean differences (SMDs) or mean differences (MDs), as appropriate, with 95% confidence intervals were computed. Version 5.4 of Review Manager (RevMan) was used to process the statistical analysis, with a random‐effects model where necessary. Results: We identified 444 records, out of which 6 randomized controlled trials were part of this meta‐analysis, totalling 353 cases: 176 being part of the ESPB group, while the remaining 177 constituted the ICNB group. For the principal outcome of dynamic pain score at 48 h postoperatively, combined analysis from five studies (n = 295) revealed a statistically significant lowered pain score with ESPB in contrast to ICNB (SMD = −0.34, 95% CI: −0.57 to −0.10, p = 0.004; I 2 = 0%). For postoperative analgesic use, all six studies (n = 353) data showed insignificant group difference (MD = 0.14, 95% CI: −1.04 to 1.32, p = 0.81; I 2 = 57%). Conclusion: This study suggests that ESPB contributed to a reduction in pain scores at 48 h after thoracoscopic surgery compared with ICNB, yet both methods exhibited equivalent postoperative analgesic consumption. These findings show that ESPB can be a preferable option for prolonged postoperative analgesia; however, additional well‐designed studies are needed to corroborate the evidence base.
SN - 1687-6962
SN - 1687-6970
ER -