Comparison of analgesic efficacy of combined external oblique intercostal and rectus sheath block with local infiltration analgesia at port site in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized controlled trial.

Anesthesia and pain medicine Pub Date : 2024-07-01 Epub Date: 2024-07-31 DOI:10.17085/apm.24002
Vaishnovi Gangadhar, Anju Gupta, Suman Saini
{"title":"Comparison of analgesic efficacy of combined external oblique intercostal and rectus sheath block with local infiltration analgesia at port site in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized controlled trial.","authors":"Vaishnovi Gangadhar, Anju Gupta, Suman Saini","doi":"10.17085/apm.24002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Conventional fascial plane block approaches for upper abdominal surgeries spare the lateral cutaneous nerve. An external oblique intercostal block (EOIB) may be suitable for upper abdominal incisions as it blocks the lateral and anterior branches of the intercostal nerves T6-T10. However, there is a paucity of studies evaluating this block in clinical settings. The study aimed to compare the analgesic efficacy of combined EOIB and rectus sheath block with local infiltration analgesia (LIA) in laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>After obtaining written informed consent, 70 patients were randomly allocated to undergo right-sided EOIB with 20 ml and left-sided RSB with 10 ml of 0.25% bupivacaine at the end of surgery (group ER, n = 35). Patients in the LIA group (n = 35) underwent local infiltration at the port site using 20 ml of the same solution (group LIA, n=35).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The visual analog scale scores with combined EOI and RSB were significantly lower than those with LIA at 1, 2, 4, 8, and 12 h (P < 0.001). Rescue analgesics were required by 65.7% and 14.3% of the patients in the LIA and block groups, respectively (P < 0.001). The time to first rescue analgesic was significantly greater in the ER group than that in the LIA group (2.8 ± 1.10 vs. 1.6 ± 0.50 h; P = 0.012). The number of times rescue analgesia was required was significantly lower in the ER group than that in the LIA group (1.00 ± 0.00 vs. 1.83 ± 0.72; P = 0.015). Nausea and vomiting scores were higher in the LIA group than those in the ER group (P < 0.001). Patient satisfaction scores were higher in the ER group than those in the LIA group.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>EOIB combined with RSB provides superior analgesia compared with LIA and should be considered for LC.</p>","PeriodicalId":101360,"journal":{"name":"Anesthesia and pain medicine","volume":"19 3","pages":"247-255"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11317318/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anesthesia and pain medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17085/apm.24002","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/31 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Conventional fascial plane block approaches for upper abdominal surgeries spare the lateral cutaneous nerve. An external oblique intercostal block (EOIB) may be suitable for upper abdominal incisions as it blocks the lateral and anterior branches of the intercostal nerves T6-T10. However, there is a paucity of studies evaluating this block in clinical settings. The study aimed to compare the analgesic efficacy of combined EOIB and rectus sheath block with local infiltration analgesia (LIA) in laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC).

Methods: After obtaining written informed consent, 70 patients were randomly allocated to undergo right-sided EOIB with 20 ml and left-sided RSB with 10 ml of 0.25% bupivacaine at the end of surgery (group ER, n = 35). Patients in the LIA group (n = 35) underwent local infiltration at the port site using 20 ml of the same solution (group LIA, n=35).

Results: The visual analog scale scores with combined EOI and RSB were significantly lower than those with LIA at 1, 2, 4, 8, and 12 h (P < 0.001). Rescue analgesics were required by 65.7% and 14.3% of the patients in the LIA and block groups, respectively (P < 0.001). The time to first rescue analgesic was significantly greater in the ER group than that in the LIA group (2.8 ± 1.10 vs. 1.6 ± 0.50 h; P = 0.012). The number of times rescue analgesia was required was significantly lower in the ER group than that in the LIA group (1.00 ± 0.00 vs. 1.83 ± 0.72; P = 0.015). Nausea and vomiting scores were higher in the LIA group than those in the ER group (P < 0.001). Patient satisfaction scores were higher in the ER group than those in the LIA group.

Conclusions: EOIB combined with RSB provides superior analgesia compared with LIA and should be considered for LC.

腹腔镜胆囊切除术患者肋间外斜肌和直肠鞘联合阻滞镇痛效果与端口部位局部浸润镇痛效果的比较:随机对照试验。
背景:上腹部手术的传统筋膜面阻滞方法会损伤外侧皮神经。肋间外斜阻滞(EOIB)可阻滞肋间神经T6-T10的外侧和前方分支,因此适用于上腹部切口。然而,在临床环境中对这种阻滞进行评估的研究还很少。本研究旨在比较腹腔镜胆囊切除术(LC)中 EOIB 和直肠鞘联合阻滞与局部浸润镇痛(LIA)的镇痛效果:在获得书面知情同意后,70 名患者被随机分配到接受右侧 EOIB(20 毫升 0.25% 布比卡因)和左侧 RSB(10 毫升 0.25% 布比卡因)手术(ER 组,n = 35)。LIA组患者(n=35)使用20毫升相同的溶液在端口部位进行局部浸润(LIA组,n=35):结果:在 1、2、4、8 和 12 小时内,合并 EOI 和 RSB 的视觉模拟量表评分明显低于 LIA 组(P < 0.001)。LIA 组和阻滞组分别有 65.7% 和 14.3% 的患者需要使用镇痛药(P < 0.001)。ER 组患者首次使用镇痛抢救药物的时间明显长于 LIA 组(2.8 ± 1.10 小时 vs. 1.6 ± 0.50 小时;P = 0.012)。急诊室组需要抢救性镇痛的次数明显少于 LIA 组(1.00 ± 0.00 vs. 1.83 ± 0.72;P = 0.015)。LIA 组的恶心和呕吐评分高于急诊室组(P < 0.001)。急诊室组患者的满意度评分高于 LIA 组:EOIB联合RSB的镇痛效果优于LIA,应考虑用于LC。
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
2.30
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信