Fascial plane blocks in labor: promise or illusion? A narrative review with expert opinion.

IF 4.1
Antonio Coviello, Dario Cirillo, Maria Grazia Frigo, Filomena Coppola, Giorgio Ranieri, Domenico Pietro Santonastaso, Paolo Scimia, Giuseppe Servillo
{"title":"Fascial plane blocks in labor: promise or illusion? A narrative review with expert opinion.","authors":"Antonio Coviello, Dario Cirillo, Maria Grazia Frigo, Filomena Coppola, Giorgio Ranieri, Domenico Pietro Santonastaso, Paolo Scimia, Giuseppe Servillo","doi":"10.1186/s44158-026-00372-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Neuraxial analgesia represents the gold standard for labor pain management, providing superior efficacy and safety for both mother and fetus. However, its use is not always feasible due to medical contraindications, technical difficulties, or patient preference. Fascial Plane Blocks (FPBs) have emerged as potential alternatives, yet evidence regarding their effectiveness in labor remains limited. The purpose of this study was to synthesize the current evidence on FPBs for labor analgesia and to offer expert insight into their potential role, benefits, and limitations within modern obstetric practice.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>A systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library (1985-2025) was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. Eligible studies included laboring women aged ≥ 18 years undergoing analgesia with FPBs. Case reports, case series, and letters to the editor were included due to the scarcity of high-level evidence. Outcomes of interest were maternal pain scores, analgesic satisfaction, and maternal-fetal safety. Because of the marked heterogeneity in study designs, interventions, and outcome measures, a meta-analysis was not feasible; therefore, a narrative synthesis was performed, and qualitative methodological assessment was undertaken using validated tools.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eight studies met inclusion criteria. QLB demonstrated promising analgesia in the first stage of labor, while lumbar and thoracic ESPBs yielded variable effects and inconsistent coverage during the second stage. Sacral ESPB showed potential as an adjunct when neuraxial techniques failed or were contraindicated. No major complications were reported; however, methodological limitations, small sample sizes, and inconsistent reporting hindered definitive conclusions. Fetal outcomes were rarely reported, and no long-term follow-up data were available.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Current evidence does not support FPBs as replacements for neuraxial analgesia. Their use should be restricted to highly selected cases where neuraxial techniques are not feasible. Importantly, there is no predefined formula for managing labor pain-analgesic strategies must be individualized according to clinical context, patient preference, and available resources. High-quality prospective studies are necessary to clarify the role of FPBs in labor.</p>","PeriodicalId":73597,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Anesthesia, Analgesia and Critical Care (Online)","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2026-03-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13069772/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Anesthesia, Analgesia and Critical Care (Online)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s44158-026-00372-0","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Neuraxial analgesia represents the gold standard for labor pain management, providing superior efficacy and safety for both mother and fetus. However, its use is not always feasible due to medical contraindications, technical difficulties, or patient preference. Fascial Plane Blocks (FPBs) have emerged as potential alternatives, yet evidence regarding their effectiveness in labor remains limited. The purpose of this study was to synthesize the current evidence on FPBs for labor analgesia and to offer expert insight into their potential role, benefits, and limitations within modern obstetric practice.

Material and methods: A systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library (1985-2025) was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. Eligible studies included laboring women aged ≥ 18 years undergoing analgesia with FPBs. Case reports, case series, and letters to the editor were included due to the scarcity of high-level evidence. Outcomes of interest were maternal pain scores, analgesic satisfaction, and maternal-fetal safety. Because of the marked heterogeneity in study designs, interventions, and outcome measures, a meta-analysis was not feasible; therefore, a narrative synthesis was performed, and qualitative methodological assessment was undertaken using validated tools.

Results: Eight studies met inclusion criteria. QLB demonstrated promising analgesia in the first stage of labor, while lumbar and thoracic ESPBs yielded variable effects and inconsistent coverage during the second stage. Sacral ESPB showed potential as an adjunct when neuraxial techniques failed or were contraindicated. No major complications were reported; however, methodological limitations, small sample sizes, and inconsistent reporting hindered definitive conclusions. Fetal outcomes were rarely reported, and no long-term follow-up data were available.

Conclusions: Current evidence does not support FPBs as replacements for neuraxial analgesia. Their use should be restricted to highly selected cases where neuraxial techniques are not feasible. Importantly, there is no predefined formula for managing labor pain-analgesic strategies must be individualized according to clinical context, patient preference, and available resources. High-quality prospective studies are necessary to clarify the role of FPBs in labor.

分娩时筋膜面阻滞:希望还是幻想?带有专家意见的叙述性评论。
背景:轴向镇痛是分娩疼痛管理的金标准,为母亲和胎儿提供了优越的疗效和安全性。然而,由于医学禁忌症、技术困难或患者偏好,其使用并不总是可行的。筋膜平面块(FPBs)已成为潜在的替代方案,但关于其在劳动中的有效性的证据仍然有限。本研究的目的是综合目前关于FPBs用于分娩镇痛的证据,并就其在现代产科实践中的潜在作用、益处和局限性提供专家见解。材料和方法:根据PRISMA指南对PubMed、EMBASE和Cochrane Library(1985-2025)进行系统检索。符合条件的研究包括年龄≥18岁的产妇使用FPBs镇痛。由于缺乏高水平的证据,病例报告、病例系列和给编辑的信件被包括在内。结果感兴趣的是产妇疼痛评分,镇痛满意度和母胎安全。由于研究设计、干预措施和结果测量的显著异质性,荟萃分析不可行;因此,进行了叙述综合,并使用经过验证的工具进行了定性方法学评估。结果:8项研究符合纳入标准。QLB在产程第一阶段显示出良好的镇痛效果,而腰椎和胸椎espb在产程第二阶段产生不同的效果和不一致的覆盖范围。当轴突技术失败或禁忌时,骶椎ESPB显示出作为辅助手段的潜力。无重大并发症报告;然而,方法学的局限性、小样本量和不一致的报告阻碍了明确的结论。胎儿结局很少报道,也没有长期随访数据。结论:目前的证据不支持FPBs作为神经轴镇痛的替代品。它们的使用应限于高度选定的病例,其中轴向技术是不可行的。重要的是,没有预先定义好的分娩镇痛策略,必须根据临床情况、患者偏好和可用资源进行个体化治疗。有必要进行高质量的前瞻性研究,以阐明FPBs在分娩中的作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书