Effect of Erector Spinae Plane Block on Postoperative Quality of Recovery in Patients Undergoing Transforaminal or Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

IF 2.3 2区 医学 Q2 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Woo-Young Jo, Kyung Won Shin, Hyung-Chul Lee, Hee-Pyoung Park, Jun-Hoe Kim, Chang-Hyun Lee, Chi Heon Kim, Chun Kee Chung, Hyongmin Oh
{"title":"Effect of Erector Spinae Plane Block on Postoperative Quality of Recovery in Patients Undergoing Transforaminal or Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Randomized Controlled Trial.","authors":"Woo-Young Jo, Kyung Won Shin, Hyung-Chul Lee, Hee-Pyoung Park, Jun-Hoe Kim, Chang-Hyun Lee, Chi Heon Kim, Chun Kee Chung, Hyongmin Oh","doi":"10.1097/ANA.0000000000001003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Erector spinae plane block (ESPB) can has been used for analgesia after lumbar spine surgery. However, its effect on postoperative quality of recovery (QoR) remains underexplored in patients undergoing transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) or oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF). This study hypothesized that ESPB would improve postoperative QoR in this patient cohort.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients undergoing TLIF or OLIF were randomized into ESPB (n=38) and control groups (n=38). In the ESPB group, 25 mL of 0.375% bupivacaine was injected into each erector spinae plane at the T12 level under ultrasound guidance before skin incision. Multimodal analgesia, including wound infiltration, was applied in both groups. The QoR-15 score was measured before surgery and 1 day (primary outcome) and 3 days after surgery. Postoperative pain at rest and during ambulation and postoperative ambulation were also evaluated for 3 days after surgery.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Perioperative QoR-15 scores were not significantly different between the ESPB and control groups including at 1 day after surgery (80±28 vs. 81±25, respectively; P=0.897). Patients in the ESPB group had a significantly lower mean (±SD) pain score during ambulation 1 hour after surgery (7±3 vs. 9±1, respectively; P=0.013) and significantly shorter median (interquartile range) time to the first ambulation after surgery (2.0 [1.0 to 5.5] h vs. 5.0 [1.8 to 10.0] h, respectively; P=0.038). There were no between-group differences in pain scores at other times or in the cumulative number of postoperative ambulations.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>ESPB, as performed in this study, did not improve the QoR after TLIF or OLIF with multimodal analgesia.</p>","PeriodicalId":16550,"journal":{"name":"Journal of neurosurgical anesthesiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of neurosurgical anesthesiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/ANA.0000000000001003","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Erector spinae plane block (ESPB) can has been used for analgesia after lumbar spine surgery. However, its effect on postoperative quality of recovery (QoR) remains underexplored in patients undergoing transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) or oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF). This study hypothesized that ESPB would improve postoperative QoR in this patient cohort.

Methods: Patients undergoing TLIF or OLIF were randomized into ESPB (n=38) and control groups (n=38). In the ESPB group, 25 mL of 0.375% bupivacaine was injected into each erector spinae plane at the T12 level under ultrasound guidance before skin incision. Multimodal analgesia, including wound infiltration, was applied in both groups. The QoR-15 score was measured before surgery and 1 day (primary outcome) and 3 days after surgery. Postoperative pain at rest and during ambulation and postoperative ambulation were also evaluated for 3 days after surgery.

Results: Perioperative QoR-15 scores were not significantly different between the ESPB and control groups including at 1 day after surgery (80±28 vs. 81±25, respectively; P=0.897). Patients in the ESPB group had a significantly lower mean (±SD) pain score during ambulation 1 hour after surgery (7±3 vs. 9±1, respectively; P=0.013) and significantly shorter median (interquartile range) time to the first ambulation after surgery (2.0 [1.0 to 5.5] h vs. 5.0 [1.8 to 10.0] h, respectively; P=0.038). There were no between-group differences in pain scores at other times or in the cumulative number of postoperative ambulations.

Conclusion: ESPB, as performed in this study, did not improve the QoR after TLIF or OLIF with multimodal analgesia.

经椎间孔或斜行腰椎椎体间融合术患者脊柱后凸平面阻滞对术后恢复质量的影响:随机对照试验
背景:脊柱后凸面阻滞(ESPB)已被用于腰椎手术后的镇痛。然而,对于接受经椎间孔腰椎椎体间融合术(TLIF)或斜侧腰椎椎体间融合术(OLIF)的患者,ESPB 对术后恢复质量(QoR)的影响仍未得到充分探讨。本研究假设,ESPB 将改善这类患者的术后 QoR:接受 TLIF 或 OLIF 手术的患者被随机分为 ESPB 组(38 人)和对照组(38 人)。ESPB组在皮肤切开前,在超声引导下在T12水平的每个竖脊肌平面注射25毫升0.375%布比卡因。两组均采用多模式镇痛,包括伤口浸润。术前、术后 1 天(主要结果)和 3 天测量 QoR-15 评分。术后 3 天还对休息时、行走时和术后行走时的疼痛进行了评估:结果:ESPB组和对照组围手术期QoR-15评分(包括术后1天)无明显差异(分别为80±28 vs. 81±25;P=0.897)。ESPB组患者术后1小时行走时的平均(±SD)疼痛评分明显更低(分别为7±3 vs. 9±1;P=0.013),术后首次行走的中位(四分位间)时间明显更短(分别为2.0 [1.0 to 5.5] h vs. 5.0 [1.8 to 10.0] h;P=0.038)。其他时间的疼痛评分和术后累计行走次数在组间没有差异:结论:本研究中的 ESPB 并未改善 TLIF 或 OLIF 术后多模式镇痛的 QoR。
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
6.20
自引率
10.80%
发文量
119
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Neurosurgical Anesthesiology (JNA) is a peer-reviewed publication directed to an audience of neuroanesthesiologists, neurosurgeons, neurosurgical monitoring specialists, neurosurgical support staff, and Neurosurgical Intensive Care Unit personnel. The journal publishes original peer-reviewed studies in the form of Clinical Investigations, Laboratory Investigations, Clinical Reports, Review Articles, Journal Club synopses of current literature from related journals, presentation of Points of View on controversial issues, Book Reviews, Correspondence, and Abstracts from affiliated neuroanesthesiology societies. JNA is the Official Journal of the Society for Neuroscience in Anesthesiology and Critical Care, the Neuroanaesthesia and Critical Care Society of Great Britain and Ireland, the Association de Neuro-Anesthésiologie Réanimation de langue Française, the Wissenschaftlicher Arbeitskreis Neuroanästhesie der Deutschen Gesellschaft fur Anästhesiologie und Intensivmedizen, the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Deutschsprachiger Neuroanästhesisten und Neuro-Intensivmediziner, the Korean Society of Neuroanesthesia, the Japanese Society of Neuroanesthesia and Critical Care, the Neuroanesthesiology Chapter of the Colegio Mexicano de Anesthesiología, the Indian Society of Neuroanesthesiology and Critical Care, and the Thai Society for Neuroanesthesia.
×
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