Comparison between ultrasound guided erector spinae plane block and paravertebral block on acute and chronic post mastectomy pain after modified radical mastectomy: randomized controlled trial.

IF 2.3 3区 医学 Q2 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Samy Abdelrahman Amr, Ahmed Hassan Othman, Eman Hassan Ahmed, Romany Gergis Naeem, Shereen Mamdouh Kamal
{"title":"Comparison between ultrasound guided erector spinae plane block and paravertebral block on acute and chronic post mastectomy pain after modified radical mastectomy: randomized controlled trial.","authors":"Samy Abdelrahman Amr, Ahmed Hassan Othman, Eman Hassan Ahmed, Romany Gergis Naeem, Shereen Mamdouh Kamal","doi":"10.1186/s12871-024-02810-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Inadequate acute postoperative pain management is linked to the effect on the stress response and development of chronic pain. A unique regional anaesthetic method that is becoming more important for postoperative pain management is erector spinea plane block (ESP). Since its initial description, physicians have questioned weather this novel easy method can take the place of paravertebral block (PVB). Our goal was to evaluate, in contrast to control group, the effects of ESP & PVB on acute and chronic post-mastectomy pain.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>One hundred and five female patients undergoing modified radical mastectomy participated in this study, randomly allocated into three equal groups: erector spinae plane block (ESP), thoracic paravertebral (TPV), and control groups. Both blocks were ultrasound-guided with 20 ml 0.25% bupivacaine according to patients' group, control group was administered standard general anaesthesia without intervention. Total morphine consumption in the first 24 h postoperative was the primary outcome. The secondary outcomes were time to the first analgesia, (Visual Analogue Scale)VAS score, serum level of cortisol and prolactin, sedation score, side effects, and LANSS scores in the first, third, and sixth postoperative months were among the variables compared between groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Total morphine consumption in the first 24 h was significantly higher in control than ESP and TPV groups (10.74 ± 1.37, 8.17 ± 1.69, 5.70 ± 1.95 respectively p < 0.001). Time to first analgesic request was the shortest in control versus ESP and TPV groups as (4.37 ± 3.06, 8.13 ± 1.75, 10.64 ± 1.83 h respectively p ˂0.001). ESP and TPV had significantly lower cortisol and prolactin levels compared to control (p < 0.001). The highest LANSS scores were in the control group in the first, third, and sixth months compared with ESP and TPV, with no significant difference between ESP and TPV.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>ESP and TPV blocks provided superior early postoperative analgesia and reduced stress response compared to the control group in female patients undergoing modified radical mastectomy. PVB is better than ESB in acute postoperative pain management (the total morphine consumption VAS score and time of first analgesic request). Both techniques showed better long-term outcomes compared to the control group regarding LANSS score in the 6-month follow-up.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>https://www.</p><p><strong>Clinicaltrials: </strong>gov trial registry (identifier NCT04498234 on 04/08/2020).</p>","PeriodicalId":9190,"journal":{"name":"BMC Anesthesiology","volume":"24 1","pages":"420"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11580581/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Anesthesiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12871-024-02810-4","RegionNum":3,"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: Inadequate acute postoperative pain management is linked to the effect on the stress response and development of chronic pain. A unique regional anaesthetic method that is becoming more important for postoperative pain management is erector spinea plane block (ESP). Since its initial description, physicians have questioned weather this novel easy method can take the place of paravertebral block (PVB). Our goal was to evaluate, in contrast to control group, the effects of ESP & PVB on acute and chronic post-mastectomy pain.

Methods: One hundred and five female patients undergoing modified radical mastectomy participated in this study, randomly allocated into three equal groups: erector spinae plane block (ESP), thoracic paravertebral (TPV), and control groups. Both blocks were ultrasound-guided with 20 ml 0.25% bupivacaine according to patients' group, control group was administered standard general anaesthesia without intervention. Total morphine consumption in the first 24 h postoperative was the primary outcome. The secondary outcomes were time to the first analgesia, (Visual Analogue Scale)VAS score, serum level of cortisol and prolactin, sedation score, side effects, and LANSS scores in the first, third, and sixth postoperative months were among the variables compared between groups.

Results: Total morphine consumption in the first 24 h was significantly higher in control than ESP and TPV groups (10.74 ± 1.37, 8.17 ± 1.69, 5.70 ± 1.95 respectively p < 0.001). Time to first analgesic request was the shortest in control versus ESP and TPV groups as (4.37 ± 3.06, 8.13 ± 1.75, 10.64 ± 1.83 h respectively p ˂0.001). ESP and TPV had significantly lower cortisol and prolactin levels compared to control (p < 0.001). The highest LANSS scores were in the control group in the first, third, and sixth months compared with ESP and TPV, with no significant difference between ESP and TPV.

Conclusion: ESP and TPV blocks provided superior early postoperative analgesia and reduced stress response compared to the control group in female patients undergoing modified radical mastectomy. PVB is better than ESB in acute postoperative pain management (the total morphine consumption VAS score and time of first analgesic request). Both techniques showed better long-term outcomes compared to the control group regarding LANSS score in the 6-month follow-up.

Trial registration: https://www.

Clinicaltrials: gov trial registry (identifier NCT04498234 on 04/08/2020).

超声引导下竖脊平面阻滞与椎旁阻滞对改良根治性乳房切除术后急性和慢性乳房切除术后疼痛的比较:随机对照试验。
背景:术后急性疼痛处理不当与应激反应和慢性疼痛的发展有关。直立脊平面阻滞疗法(ESP)是一种独特的区域麻醉方法,在术后疼痛治疗中正变得越来越重要。自其首次问世以来,医生们一直在质疑这种新颖简便的方法能否取代椎旁阻滞(PVB)。我们的目标是,与对照组相比,评估 ESP 和 PVB 对乳房切除术后急性和慢性疼痛的影响:105 名接受改良根治性乳房切除术的女性患者参加了这项研究,她们被随机分配到三个相同的组别:竖脊平面阻滞组(ESP)、胸椎旁阻滞组(TPV)和对照组。两组患者均在超声引导下使用 20 毫升 0.25% 布比卡因进行阻滞,对照组则在无干预的情况下实施标准全身麻醉。术后 24 小时内的吗啡总消耗量是主要结果。组间比较的变量包括首次镇痛时间、视觉模拟量表(VAS)评分、皮质醇和催乳素血清水平、镇静评分、副作用以及术后第一、第三和第六个月的LANSS评分:结果:对照组在头 24 小时的吗啡总消耗量明显高于 ESP 组和 TPV 组(分别为 10.74 ± 1.37、8.17 ± 1.69、5.70 ± 1.95):与对照组相比,ESP 和 TPV 阻滞为接受改良根治性乳房切除术的女性患者提供了更好的术后早期镇痛效果,并降低了应激反应。在术后急性疼痛管理(吗啡总消耗量 VAS 评分和首次镇痛请求时间)方面,PVB 优于 ESB。在6个月的随访中,与对照组相比,两种技术在LANSS评分方面都显示出更好的长期效果。试验注册:https://www.Clinicaltrials: gov 试验注册(标识符NCT04498234,2020年8月4日)。
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
BMC Anesthesiology
BMC Anesthesiology ANESTHESIOLOGY-
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
4.50%
发文量
349
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Anesthesiology is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of anesthesiology, critical care, perioperative care and pain management, including clinical and experimental research into anesthetic mechanisms, administration and efficacy, technology and monitoring, and associated economic issues.
×
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