To unlock this feature and to subscribe to our weekly evidence emails, please create a FREE orthoEvidence account.

SIGNUP

Already Have an Account?

Loading...
Visit our Evidence-Based Covid-19 Website and Stay Up to Date with the latest Research.
Ace Report Cover

Comparing Erector Spinae Plane & Caudal Epidural Block for Pain Relief after Lumbar Fusion Surgery

Share
Reprints
Cite This
About
+ Favorites
Share
Reprints
Cite This
About
+ Favorites
Ace Report Cover
June 2025

Comparing Erector Spinae Plane & Caudal Epidural Block for Pain Relief after Lumbar Fusion Surgery

Vol: 307| Issue: 6| Number:11| ISSN#: 2564-2537
Study Type:Therapy
OE Level Evidence:1
Journal Level of Evidence:1

Comparison Between Relative Efficacy of Erector Spinae Plane Block and Caudal Epidural Block for Postoperative Analgesia in Lumbar Fusion Surgery- A Prospective Randomized Controlled Study.

Global Spine J . 2025 Mar;15(2):639-647.

Contributing Authors:
Y Patel K Ramachandran AP Shetty S Chelliah B Subramanian RM Kanna R Shanmuganathan

Did you know you're eligible to earn 0.5 CME credits for reading this report? Click Here

Synopsis

Eighty-one patients undergoing single-level lumbar fusion surgery were randomized to receive either ultrasound-guided erector spinae plane block (ESPB, n=27), caudal epidural block (CEB, n=27), or no block (control, n=27). The primary outcome was total opioid consumption (TOC) in the first 24 hours. Secondary outcomes included pain scores (Numeric Rating Scale, NRS), time to mobilization, patient ...

CME Image

Did you know that you’re eligible to earn 0.5 CME credits for reading this report!

LEARN MORE

Join the Conversation

Please Login or Join to leave comments.

Learn about our AI Driven
High Impact Search Feature

High Impact Icon

Our AI driven High Impact metric calculates the impact an article will have by considering both the publishing journal and the content of the article itself. Built using the latest advances in natural language processing, OE High Impact predicts an article’s future number of citations better than impact factor alone.

Continue