Efficacy and Safety of Ultrasound Guided Inter-semispinal Plane Block for Postoperative Analgesia in Posterior Cervical Laminectomy - A Prospective Randomised Controlled Study.

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Global Spine Journal Pub Date : 2025-04-01 Epub Date: 2024-05-10 DOI:10.1177/21925682241254327
Karthik Ramachandran, Madhanmohan Chandramohan, Ajoy Prasad Shetty, Balavenkat Subramanian, Rishi Mugesh Kanna, Shanmuganathan Rajasekaran
{"title":"Efficacy and Safety of Ultrasound Guided Inter-semispinal Plane Block for Postoperative Analgesia in Posterior Cervical Laminectomy - A Prospective Randomised Controlled Study.","authors":"Karthik Ramachandran, Madhanmohan Chandramohan, Ajoy Prasad Shetty, Balavenkat Subramanian, Rishi Mugesh Kanna, Shanmuganathan Rajasekaran","doi":"10.1177/21925682241254327","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Study designProspective, randomized controlled study.ObjectiveTo assess the safety and efficacy of an ultrasound-guided ISP block for postoperative analgesia in posterior cervical laminectomy.Methods88 patients requiring posterior cervical laminectomy were randomized into two groups, those who underwent ISP block with multimodal analgesia (ISPB group) and those with only multimodal analgesia (control group). Demographic details, intraoperative parameters (blood loss, duration of surgery, perioperative total opioid consumption, muscle relaxants used), and postoperative parameters (numeric rating scale, satisfaction score, mobilization time, and complications) were recorded.ResultsThe total opioid consumption (128.41 + 39.65vs 284.09 + 140.92mcg; <i>P</i> < .001), muscle relaxant usage (46.14 + 6.18 mg vs 59.32 + 3.97 mg; <i>P</i> < .001), surgical duration (128.61 + 26.08/160.23 + 30.99mins; <i>P</i> < .01), and intra-operative blood loss (233.18 + 66.08 mL vs 409.77 + 115.41 mL; <i>P</i> < .01) were significantly less in the ISPB group compared to the control. In the postoperative period, the control group's pain score was significantly higher (<i>P</i> < .001) in the initial 48 hours. The Modified Observer Alertness/Sedation Score (MOASS) score and satisfaction scores were significantly better in the ISPB compared to the control (<i>P</i> < .001). The mean time required to ambulate was statistically less in ISPB (4.30 + 1.64hours) when compared to controls (9.48 + 3.07hours) (<i>P</i> < .001).ConclusionIn patients undergoing posterior cervical laminectomy, ISP block is a safe and effective technique with better outcomes than standard multi-modal analgesia alone, in terms of reduced intra-operative opioid requirements and blood loss, better postoperative analgesia, and early mobilization.</p>","PeriodicalId":12680,"journal":{"name":"Global Spine Journal","volume":" ","pages":"1625-1634"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11571355/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Spine Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/21925682241254327","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/10 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Study designProspective, randomized controlled study.ObjectiveTo assess the safety and efficacy of an ultrasound-guided ISP block for postoperative analgesia in posterior cervical laminectomy.Methods88 patients requiring posterior cervical laminectomy were randomized into two groups, those who underwent ISP block with multimodal analgesia (ISPB group) and those with only multimodal analgesia (control group). Demographic details, intraoperative parameters (blood loss, duration of surgery, perioperative total opioid consumption, muscle relaxants used), and postoperative parameters (numeric rating scale, satisfaction score, mobilization time, and complications) were recorded.ResultsThe total opioid consumption (128.41 + 39.65vs 284.09 + 140.92mcg; P < .001), muscle relaxant usage (46.14 + 6.18 mg vs 59.32 + 3.97 mg; P < .001), surgical duration (128.61 + 26.08/160.23 + 30.99mins; P < .01), and intra-operative blood loss (233.18 + 66.08 mL vs 409.77 + 115.41 mL; P < .01) were significantly less in the ISPB group compared to the control. In the postoperative period, the control group's pain score was significantly higher (P < .001) in the initial 48 hours. The Modified Observer Alertness/Sedation Score (MOASS) score and satisfaction scores were significantly better in the ISPB compared to the control (P < .001). The mean time required to ambulate was statistically less in ISPB (4.30 + 1.64hours) when compared to controls (9.48 + 3.07hours) (P < .001).ConclusionIn patients undergoing posterior cervical laminectomy, ISP block is a safe and effective technique with better outcomes than standard multi-modal analgesia alone, in terms of reduced intra-operative opioid requirements and blood loss, better postoperative analgesia, and early mobilization.

超声引导下椎间孔平面阻滞用于颈椎后路切除术术后镇痛的有效性和安全性--一项前瞻性随机对照研究。
研究设计前瞻性随机对照研究:方法:将88例需要进行颈椎后路椎板切除术的患者随机分为两组,即接受ISP阻滞和多模式镇痛的患者(ISPB组)和仅接受多模式镇痛的患者(对照组)。记录了两组患者的详细人口统计学资料、术中参数(失血量、手术时间、围手术期阿片类药物总用量、肌肉松弛剂用量)和术后参数(数字评分量表、满意度评分、活动时间和并发症):结果:阿片类药物总用量(128.41 + 39.65vs 284.09 + 140.92mcg;P < .001)、肌肉松弛剂用量(46.14 + 6.18 mg vs 59.32 + 3.97 mg;P < .001)、手术持续时间(128.61 + 26.08/160.23 + 30.99mins; P < .01)、术中失血量(233.18 + 66.08 mL vs 409.77 + 115.41 mL; P < .01),ISPB 组均显著少于对照组。术后最初 48 小时内,对照组的疼痛评分明显更高(P < .001)。与对照组相比,ISPB 组的改良观察者警觉性/镇静评分(MOASS)和满意度评分明显更高(P < .001)。与对照组(9.48 + 3.07小时)相比,ISPB患者所需的平均行走时间(4.30 + 1.64小时)在统计学上更短(P < .001):在接受颈椎后路椎板切除术的患者中,ISP阻滞是一种安全有效的技术,在减少术中阿片类药物需求量和失血量、改善术后镇痛和早期活动能力方面,其效果优于单纯的标准多模式镇痛。
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
Global Spine Journal
Global Spine Journal Medicine-Surgery
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
8.30%
发文量
278
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊介绍: Global Spine Journal (GSJ) is the official scientific publication of AOSpine. A peer-reviewed, open access journal, devoted to the study and treatment of spinal disorders, including diagnosis, operative and non-operative treatment options, surgical techniques, and emerging research and clinical developments.GSJ is indexed in PubMedCentral, SCOPUS, and Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI).
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信