A Comparative Study of Ultrasound Guided erector Spinae Plane Block versus Local Anaesthetic Infiltration in Spine Surgeries for Intraoperative and Post-operative Analgesia

Shweta A. Puntambekar, Varshali M Keniya
{"title":"A Comparative Study of Ultrasound Guided erector Spinae Plane Block versus Local Anaesthetic Infiltration in Spine Surgeries for Intraoperative and Post-operative Analgesia","authors":"Shweta A. Puntambekar, Varshali M Keniya","doi":"10.4103/ijpn.ijpn_25_23","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n \n Thoracolumbar spine surgeries need multimodal analgesia to control postoperative pain and early recovery. The study is about comparing the efficacy of bilateral single-shot ultrasound-guided (USG) erector spinae plane block (ESPB) versus local anesthetic infiltration before incision in patients scheduled for spine surgeries under general anesthesia (GA).\n \n \n \n This study aimed to compare USG-guided ESPB versus local anesthetic infiltration in spine surgeries for intraoperative and postoperative analgesia.\n \n \n \n Forty patients, the American Society of Anesthesiologists I, II, and III aged 18–80 years, undergoing spine surgeries under GA were enrolled in this prospective, randomized study. Patients were randomized to two groups of 20 each. Group L received GA and local anesthetic infiltration at the incision site by the surgeon and Group E received GA and preoperative bilateral ESPB with 20 mL 0.375% bupivacaine at each site. The primary outcome was the assessment by Numeric Rating Score (NRS) and total postoperative analgesic consumption in the first 24 h. The secondary objectives were intraoperative hemodynamic stability and dexmedetomidine requirement.\n \n \n \n NRS at 4-h, 6-h, and 12-h postincision was significantly higher in Group L compared to Group E (P = 0.006, P = 00.001, and P = 00.006). The requirement of intraoperative dexmedetomidine and total doses of postoperative analgesic were significantly lower in Group E compared to Group L (P = 0.001). Patients who received ESPB showed better hemodynamic stability compared to those who received local anesthetic infiltration at the incision site.\n \n \n \n Preoperative bilateral single-shot USG-guided ESPB provides safe and effective intraoperative as well as postoperative analgesia for spine surgeries with reduced analgesic requirement.\n","PeriodicalId":32328,"journal":{"name":"Indian Journal of Pain","volume":" 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indian Journal of Pain","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/ijpn.ijpn_25_23","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

Thoracolumbar spine surgeries need multimodal analgesia to control postoperative pain and early recovery. The study is about comparing the efficacy of bilateral single-shot ultrasound-guided (USG) erector spinae plane block (ESPB) versus local anesthetic infiltration before incision in patients scheduled for spine surgeries under general anesthesia (GA). This study aimed to compare USG-guided ESPB versus local anesthetic infiltration in spine surgeries for intraoperative and postoperative analgesia. Forty patients, the American Society of Anesthesiologists I, II, and III aged 18–80 years, undergoing spine surgeries under GA were enrolled in this prospective, randomized study. Patients were randomized to two groups of 20 each. Group L received GA and local anesthetic infiltration at the incision site by the surgeon and Group E received GA and preoperative bilateral ESPB with 20 mL 0.375% bupivacaine at each site. The primary outcome was the assessment by Numeric Rating Score (NRS) and total postoperative analgesic consumption in the first 24 h. The secondary objectives were intraoperative hemodynamic stability and dexmedetomidine requirement. NRS at 4-h, 6-h, and 12-h postincision was significantly higher in Group L compared to Group E (P = 0.006, P = 00.001, and P = 00.006). The requirement of intraoperative dexmedetomidine and total doses of postoperative analgesic were significantly lower in Group E compared to Group L (P = 0.001). Patients who received ESPB showed better hemodynamic stability compared to those who received local anesthetic infiltration at the incision site. Preoperative bilateral single-shot USG-guided ESPB provides safe and effective intraoperative as well as postoperative analgesia for spine surgeries with reduced analgesic requirement.
脊柱手术中超声引导下竖脊肌平面阻滞与局部麻醉浸润在术中和术后镇痛方面的比较研究
胸腰椎手术需要多模式镇痛来控制术后疼痛并尽早恢复。本研究旨在比较在全身麻醉(GA)下计划进行脊柱手术的患者双侧单发超声引导(USG)竖脊肌平面阻滞(ESPB)与切口前局麻药浸润的疗效。 本研究旨在比较 USG 引导下的竖脊肌平面阻滞与局麻药浸润在脊柱手术中的术中和术后镇痛效果。 40 名年龄在 18-80 岁之间、在 GA 下接受脊柱手术的美国麻醉医师协会 I、II 和 III 级患者被纳入了这项前瞻性随机研究。患者被随机分为两组,每组 20 人。L 组接受 GA 并由外科医生在切口部位进行局麻药浸润,E 组接受 GA 并在术前双侧 ESPB,每个部位使用 20 mL 0.375% 布比卡因。主要结果是数字评分(NRS)和术后 24 小时镇痛剂总用量的评估,次要目标是术中血流动力学稳定性和右美托咪定需求量。 与E组相比,L组在切口后4小时、6小时和12小时的NRS明显更高(P = 0.006、P = 00.001和P = 00.006)。与 L 组相比,E 组术中对右美托咪定的需求量和术后镇痛剂的总剂量明显降低(P = 0.001)。与在切口部位接受局麻药浸润的患者相比,接受 ESPB 的患者表现出更好的血流动力学稳定性。 术前双侧单针 USG 引导 ESPB 可为脊柱手术提供安全有效的术中和术后镇痛,同时减少镇痛剂的需求量。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
29
审稿时长
15 weeks
×
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