Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 664

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Systematic Review of Randomized Trials Evaluating Regional Techniques for Postthoracotomy Analgesia

Joshi, Girish P., Bonnet, Francis, Shah, Rajesh, Wilkinson, Roseanne C., Camu, Frederic, Fischer, Barrie, Neugebauer, Edmund A. M., Rawal, Narinder, Schug, Stephan A., Simanski, Christian, Kehlet, Henrik·2008·Anesthesia & Analgesia

Abstract

In Brief BACKGROUND: Thoracotomy induces severe postoperative pain and impairment of pulmonary function, and therefore regional analgesia has been intensively studied in this procedure. Thoracic epidural analgesia is commonly considered the “gold standard” in this setting; however, evaluation of the evidence is needed to assess the comparative benefits of alternative techniques, guide clinical practice and identify areas requiring further research. METHODS: In this systematic review of randomized trials we evaluated thoracic epidural, paravertebral, intrathecal, intercostal, and interpleural analgesic techniques, compared to each other and to systemic opioid analgesia, in adult thoracotomy. Postoperative pain, analgesic use, and complications were analyzed. RESULTS: Continuous paravertebral block was as effective as thoracic epidural analgesia with local anesthetic (LA) but was associated with a reduced incidence of hypotension. Paravertebral block reduced the incidence of pulmonary complications compared with systemic analgesia, whereas thoracic epidural analgesia did not. Thoracic epidural analgesia was superior to intrathecal and intercostal techniques, although these were superior to systemic analgesia; interpleural analgesia was inadequate. CONCLUSIONS: Either thoracic epidural analgesia with LA plus opioid or continuous paravertebral block with LA can be recommended. Where these techniques are not possible, or are contraindicated, intrathecal opioid or intercostal nerve block are recommended despite insufficient duration of analgesia, which requires the use of supplementary systemic analgesia. Quantitative meta-analyses were limited by heterogeneity in study design, and subject numbers were small. Further well designed studies are required to investigate the optimum components of the epidural solution and to rigorously evaluate the risks/benefits of continuous infusion paravertebral and intercostal techniques compared with thoracic epidural analgesia. IMPLICATIONS: Evidence from a systematic review evaluating different regional analgesic techniques for management of post-thoracotomy pain shows that paravertebral block is as effective as thoracic epidural local anesthetic for analgesia, and is associated with fewer side effects, whereas other techniques provide inferior analgesia or require further study. Based on current evidence, thoracic epidural analgesia and paravertebral block are recommended as first choice treatments; intrathecal or intercostal analgesia are recommended if those techniques are not possible; interpleural analgesia is not recommended.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1213/01.ane.0000333274.63501.ff

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 6 references

Cited by

See all 664

Metadata

Authors
Joshi, G. P., Bonnet, F., Shah, R., Wilkinson, R. C., Camu, F., Fischer, B., Neugebauer, E. A. M., Rawal, N., Schug, S. A., Simanski, C., & Kehlet, H.
Venue
Anesthesia & Analgesia
Published
2008-09
Volume
107
Issue
3
Pages
1026-1040
ISSN
0003-2999 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2002193364
Cited by
664
References
6
FWCI
5.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A Systematic Review of Randomized Trials Evaluating Regional Techniques for Postthoracotomy Analgesia. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1213/01.ane.0000333274.63501.ff
The paper
Joshi, G. P., Bonnet, F., Shah, R., Wilkinson, R. C., Camu, F., Fischer, B., Neugebauer, E. A. M., Rawal, N., Schug, S. A., Simanski, C., & Kehlet, H. (2008). A Systematic Review of Randomized Trials Evaluating Regional Techniques for Postthoracotomy Analgesia. Anesthesia & Analgesia. https://doi.org/10.1213/01.ane.0000333274.63501.ff

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.