Article Data

  • Views 697
  • Dowloads 64

Systematic Reviews

Open Access

Erector spinae plane block for breast surgery: an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses

  • Burhan Dost1
  • Alessandro De Cassai2,3
  • Yunus Emre Karapinar4,*,
  • Mehmet Akif Yilmaz4
  • Esra Turunc1
  • Muzeyyen Beldagli5
  • Mirac Selcen Ozkal Yalin4
  • Ersin Koksal1
  • Ali Ahiskalioglu4
  • Serkan Tulgar5

1Department of Anesthesiology and Reanimation, Ondokuz Mayis University Faculty of Medicine, 55270 Samsun, Türkiye

2Department of Medicine (DIMED), University of Padua, 35131 Padua, Italy

3Institute of Anesthesia and Intensive Care Unit, University Hospital of Padua, 35131 Padua, Italy

4Department of Anesthesiology and Reanimation, Ataturk University School of Medicine, 25100 Erzurum, Türkiye

5Department of Anesthesiology and Reanimation, Samsun Training and Research Hospital, 55090 Samsun, Türkiye

DOI: 10.22514/sv.2025.121

Submitted: 20 April 2025 Accepted: 24 June 2025

Online publish date: 12 August 2025

*Corresponding Author(s): Yunus Emre Karapinar E-mail: yunus.karapinar@iuc.edu.tr

Abstract

Background: Postoperative pain remains a significant clinical concern following breast surgery, negatively impacting patient recovery and satisfaction. The erector spinae plane (ESP) block has gained popularity due to its opioid-sparing effect and ease of application. However, despite numerous systematic reviews and meta-analyses evaluating the efficacy of ESP block in breast surgery, methodological heterogeneity, varying study quality, and inconsistent findings have led to uncertainty regarding the strength and reliability of the evidence. Methods: In this umbrella review, we aimed to critically appraise, synthesize, and consolidate existing systematic reviews and meta-analyses to clarify the efficacy of the ESP block in breast surgery. We systematically searched The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Embase, PubMed Central, and Scopus from 2016 to 2025, to identify relevant systematic reviews and meta-analyses including patients undergoing breast surgery with ESP block compared to control interventions. Results: A total of six systematic reviews were included. Based on the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR)-2 assessment, two were rated as high quality, two as low quality, and the remaining two as critically low quality. All reviews consistently demonstrated that ESP block significantly reduced opioid consumption at 24 hours (mean reduction range: −4.93 to −7.67 morphine milligram equivalents). Pain scores at 0–2, 12, and 24 hours postoperatively were also significantly reduced, although the clinical relevance diminished at later time points. Additionally, ESP block was associated with a reduction in the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). Conclusions: The ESP block consistently demonstrates efficacy in reducing postoperative pain, opioid consumption, and PONV in patients undergoing breast surgery. However, substantial methodological limitations and heterogeneity among existing systematic reviews underscore the need for more rigorous research and standardized reporting practices. The PROSPERO Registration: CRD420251002414, https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251002414.


Keywords

Breast surgery; Erector spinae plane block; Meta-analysis; Postoperative analgesia


Cite and Share

Burhan Dost,Alessandro De Cassai,Yunus Emre Karapinar,Mehmet Akif Yilmaz,Esra Turunc,Muzeyyen Beldagli,Mirac Selcen Ozkal Yalin,Ersin Koksal,Ali Ahiskalioglu,Serkan Tulgar. Erector spinae plane block for breast surgery: an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Signa Vitae. 2025.doi:10.22514/sv.2025.121.

References

[1] Doan LV, Yoon J, Chun J, Perez R, Wang J. Pain associated with breast cancer: etiologies and therapies. Frontiers in Pain Research. 2023; 4: 1182488.

[2] Clephas PR, Orbach-Zinger S, Gosteli-Peter MA, Hoshen M, Halpern S, Hilber ND, et al. Regional analgesia techniques for postoperative pain after breast cancer surgery: a network meta-analysis. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2025; 6: CD014818.

[3] Sethuraman RM. Regional anesthesia techniques for breast cancer surgeries—a narrative review. Indian Journal of Surgical Oncology. 2025; 16: 127–133.

[4] Jacobs A, Lemoine A, Joshi GP, Van de Velde M, Bonnet F. PROSPECT guideline for oncological breast surgery: a systematic review and procedure-specific postoperative pain management recommendations. Anaesthesia. 2020; 75: 664–673.

[5] Karmakar MK, Lönnqvist P. The clinical use of the thoracic erector spinae plane block. Con—ESPB is not useful for thoracic analgesia. Journal of Clinical Anesthesia. 2024; 93: 111353.

[6] Forero M, Adhikary SD, Lopez H, Tsui C, Chin KJ. The erector spinae plane block: a novel analgesic technique in thoracic neuropathic pain. Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine. 2016; 41: 621–627.

[7] De Cassai A, Dost B, Aviani Fulvio G, Turunc E, Navalesi P. Dissecting the efficacy of erector spinae plane block: a cadaveric study analysis of anesthetic spread to ventral rami. Journal of Clinical Anesthesia. 2024; 99: 111638.

[8] Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. The BMJ. 2021; 372: n71.

[9] Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G, Thuku M, Hamel C, Moran J, et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. The BMJ. 2017; 358: j4008.

[10] Lex A, Gehlenborg N, Strobelt H, Vuillemot R, Pfister H. UpSet: visualization of intersecting sets. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics. 2014; 20: 1983–1992.

[11] Zhang Y, Liu T, Zhou Y, Yu Y, Chen G. Analgesic efficacy and safety of erector spinae plane block in breast cancer surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Anesthesiology. 2021; 21: 59.

[12] Hussain N, Brull R, Noble J, Weaver T, Essandoh M, McCartney CJ, et al. Statistically significant but clinically unimportant: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the analgesic benefits of erector spinae plane block following breast cancer surgery. Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine. 2021; 46: 3–12.

[13] Li H, Shen Q, Zhou X, Shen X. Analgesic effects of erector spinae plane block for patients after breast surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of International Medical Research. 2021; 49: 300060521999568.

[14] Leong RW, Tan ESJ, Wong SN, Tan KH, Liu CW. Efficacy of erector spinae plane block for analgesia in breast surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Anaesthesia. 2021; 76: 404–413.

[15] Guan H, Yuan Y, Gao K, Luo H. Efficacy and safety of erector spinae plane block for postoperative analgesia in breast cancer surgery—a systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Surgical Oncology. 2023; 127: 905–920.

[16] Singh NP, Makkar JK, Borle A, Singh PM. Analgesic efficacy of erector spinae plane block for oncologic breast surgery: a meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis. The Breast Journal. 2020; 26: 2295–2298.

[17] Dost B, Bugada D, Karapinar YE, Balzani E, Beldagli M, Aviani Fulvio G, et al. Paravertebral block is not superior to the interpectoral and pectoserratus plane block for patients undergoing breast surgery. European Journal of Anaesthesiology. 2025; 42: 637–648.

[18] Genc C, Kaya C, Bilgin S, Dost B, Ustun YB, Koksal E. Pectoserratus plane block versus erector spinae plane block for postoperative opioid consumption and acute and chronic pain after breast cancer surgery: a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Clinical Anesthesia. 2022; 79: 110691.


Abstracted / indexed in

Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch) Created as SCI in 1964, Science Citation Index Expanded now indexes over 9,200 of the world’s most impactful journals across 178 scientific disciplines. More than 53 million records and 1.18 billion cited references date back from 1900 to present.

Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition aims to evaluate a journal’s value from multiple perspectives including the journal impact factor, descriptive data about a journal’s open access content as well as contributing authors, and provide readers a transparent and publisher-neutral data & statistics information about the journal.

Chemical Abstracts Service Source Index The CAS Source Index (CASSI) Search Tool is an online resource that can quickly identify or confirm journal titles and abbreviations for publications indexed by CAS since 1907, including serial and non-serial scientific and technical publications.

Index Copernicus The Index Copernicus International (ICI) Journals database’s is an international indexation database of scientific journals. It covered international scientific journals which divided into general information, contents of individual issues, detailed bibliography (references) sections for every publication, as well as full texts of publications in the form of attached files (optional). For now, there are more than 58,000 scientific journals registered at ICI.

Geneva Foundation for Medical Education and Research The Geneva Foundation for Medical Education and Research (GFMER) is a non-profit organization established in 2002 and it works in close collaboration with the World Health Organization (WHO). The overall objectives of the Foundation are to promote and develop health education and research programs.

Scopus: CiteScore 1.3 (2024) Scopus is Elsevier's abstract and citation database launched in 2004. Scopus covers nearly 36,377 titles (22,794 active titles and 13,583 Inactive titles) from approximately 11,678 publishers, of which 34,346 are peer-reviewed journals in top-level subject fields: life sciences, social sciences, physical sciences and health sciences.

Embase Embase (often styled EMBASE for Excerpta Medica dataBASE), produced by Elsevier, is a biomedical and pharmacological database of published literature designed to support information managers and pharmacovigilance in complying with the regulatory requirements of a licensed drug.

Submission Turnaround Time

Top