Postoperative analgesic effectiveness of ultrasound-guided bilateral erector spinae plane block

IF 7.5 1区 医学 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Anaesthesia Pub Date : 2024-11-22 DOI:10.1111/anae.16485
Pinguo Fu
{"title":"Postoperative analgesic effectiveness of ultrasound-guided bilateral erector spinae plane block","authors":"Pinguo Fu","doi":"10.1111/anae.16485","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>While the study of Urmale Kusse et al. [<span>1</span>] makes a valuable contribution to the topic, I believe that several aspects warrant further discussion.</p>\n<p>First, the sample size was based on a randomised controlled trial investigating postoperative analgesia in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy [<span>2</span>]. The trial compared rectus sheath block with rectus sheath block and erector spinae plane block, which differs from the comparison in the current study. Thus, using this reference to calculate the sample size may not be appropriate. Additionally, the blinding in this study presents challenges, as the puncture sites for erector spinae plane block and rectus sheath block are located on the back and abdomen, respectively, compromising blinding for both patients and postoperative caregivers. The inclusion of placebo or sham blocks would have improved blinding.</p>\n<p>Second, regarding the evaluation of postoperative analgesic outcomes, the study measured total opioid consumption and converted the 24-h opioid use into standardised morphine milligram equivalents (MME). The results showed mean (SD) opioid consumption of 3.5 (8.7) MME in the erector spinae plane block group vs. 8.2 (2.8) MME in the rectus sheath block group (p = 0.003). However, the minimum clinically important difference for 24-h postoperative opioid consumption is 10 MME [<span>3</span>], indicating that the observed difference between the two groups did not meet this threshold. I believe this may be attributed to the analgesic protocol employed, which involved administering medication based on pain assessment rather than patient-control. This approach may have resulted in delayed opioid administration, potentially compromising pain control, as a significant proportion of patients experienced moderate to severe pain (NRS 4–7) postoperatively. This could be related to the constraints typical of low- and middle-income settings.</p>\n<p>Finally, I have concerns regarding the timeline of the nerve block procedures. Both blocks were performed while patients were anaesthetised. While rectus sheath block can be administered with the patient in a supine position, erector spinae plane block requires the patient to be in the lateral decubitus position. This necessitates repositioning the anaesthetised patient from supine to lateral and then back to supine, which is complex and time-consuming. However, the reported mean (SD) anaesthesia duration of 164 (16) min for the erector spinae plane block group and 159 (14) min for the rectus sheath block group; and the surgery duration of 150 (14) min for the erector spinae plane block group and 143 (18) min for the rectus sheath block group, do not indicate a longer non-surgical anaesthesia time for the erector spinae plane block group.</p>","PeriodicalId":7742,"journal":{"name":"Anaesthesia","volume":"55 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anaesthesia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/anae.16485","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

While the study of Urmale Kusse et al. [1] makes a valuable contribution to the topic, I believe that several aspects warrant further discussion.

First, the sample size was based on a randomised controlled trial investigating postoperative analgesia in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy [2]. The trial compared rectus sheath block with rectus sheath block and erector spinae plane block, which differs from the comparison in the current study. Thus, using this reference to calculate the sample size may not be appropriate. Additionally, the blinding in this study presents challenges, as the puncture sites for erector spinae plane block and rectus sheath block are located on the back and abdomen, respectively, compromising blinding for both patients and postoperative caregivers. The inclusion of placebo or sham blocks would have improved blinding.

Second, regarding the evaluation of postoperative analgesic outcomes, the study measured total opioid consumption and converted the 24-h opioid use into standardised morphine milligram equivalents (MME). The results showed mean (SD) opioid consumption of 3.5 (8.7) MME in the erector spinae plane block group vs. 8.2 (2.8) MME in the rectus sheath block group (p = 0.003). However, the minimum clinically important difference for 24-h postoperative opioid consumption is 10 MME [3], indicating that the observed difference between the two groups did not meet this threshold. I believe this may be attributed to the analgesic protocol employed, which involved administering medication based on pain assessment rather than patient-control. This approach may have resulted in delayed opioid administration, potentially compromising pain control, as a significant proportion of patients experienced moderate to severe pain (NRS 4–7) postoperatively. This could be related to the constraints typical of low- and middle-income settings.

Finally, I have concerns regarding the timeline of the nerve block procedures. Both blocks were performed while patients were anaesthetised. While rectus sheath block can be administered with the patient in a supine position, erector spinae plane block requires the patient to be in the lateral decubitus position. This necessitates repositioning the anaesthetised patient from supine to lateral and then back to supine, which is complex and time-consuming. However, the reported mean (SD) anaesthesia duration of 164 (16) min for the erector spinae plane block group and 159 (14) min for the rectus sheath block group; and the surgery duration of 150 (14) min for the erector spinae plane block group and 143 (18) min for the rectus sheath block group, do not indicate a longer non-surgical anaesthesia time for the erector spinae plane block group.

超声引导下双侧竖脊肌平面阻滞的术后镇痛效果
虽然Urmale Kusse等人的研究[1]对该主题做出了宝贵贡献,但我认为有几个方面值得进一步讨论。首先,样本量是基于一项随机对照试验,该试验调查了腹腔镜胆囊切除术患者的术后镇痛情况[2]。该试验将直肠鞘阻滞与直肠鞘阻滞和竖脊平面阻滞进行了比较,这与当前研究中的比较有所不同。因此,使用该参考文献计算样本量可能并不合适。此外,本研究的盲法也存在挑战,因为竖脊肌平面阻滞和直肌鞘阻滞的穿刺部位分别位于背部和腹部,这就影响了患者和术后护理人员的盲法。其次,关于术后镇痛效果的评估,该研究测量了阿片类药物的总用量,并将24小时的阿片类药物用量转换为标准化的吗啡毫克当量(MME)。结果显示,竖脊肌平面阻滞组的阿片类药物平均(标清)消耗量为3.5(8.7)毫克吗啡当量,而直肌鞘阻滞组为8.2(2.8)毫克吗啡当量(P = 0.003)。然而,术后 24 小时阿片类药物消耗量的最小临床意义差异为 10 MME [3],这表明两组之间的观察差异并未达到这一临界值。我认为这可能与采用的镇痛方案有关,即根据疼痛评估而非患者控制情况用药。这种方法可能会导致阿片类药物的延迟给药,从而可能会影响疼痛控制,因为相当一部分患者在术后会出现中度到重度疼痛(NRS 4-7)。最后,我对神经阻滞手术的时间安排表示担忧。两次阻滞都是在患者麻醉状态下进行的。直肌鞘阻滞可在患者仰卧位时进行,而竖脊肌平面阻滞则需要患者取侧卧位。这就需要将麻醉后的患者从仰卧位调整到侧卧位,然后再回到仰卧位,过程复杂且耗时。然而,据报道,直立肌脊柱平面阻滞组的平均(标度)麻醉时间为 164(16)分钟,直肌鞘阻滞组为 159(14)分钟;直立肌脊柱平面阻滞组的手术时间为 150(14)分钟,直肌鞘阻滞组为 143(18)分钟,这并不表明直立肌脊柱平面阻滞组的非手术麻醉时间更长。
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
Anaesthesia
Anaesthesia 医学-麻醉学
CiteScore
21.20
自引率
9.30%
发文量
300
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: The official journal of the Association of Anaesthetists is Anaesthesia. It is a comprehensive international publication that covers a wide range of topics. The journal focuses on general and regional anaesthesia, as well as intensive care and pain therapy. It includes original articles that have undergone peer review, covering all aspects of these fields, including research on equipment.
×
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