Comparison of perioperative analgesic effectiveness of ultrasound-guided erector spinae plane block and transversus abdominis plane block in patients undergoing laparoscopic nephrectomy.

Nevzat Özfırat, Selcan Akesen, Suna Gören, Alp Gurbet
{"title":"Comparison of perioperative analgesic effectiveness of ultrasound-guided erector spinae plane block and transversus abdominis plane block in patients undergoing laparoscopic nephrectomy.","authors":"Nevzat Özfırat, Selcan Akesen, Suna Gören, Alp Gurbet","doi":"10.14744/agri.2024.97947","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>In this study, we aimed to compare the efficacy of two regional anesthesia methods, transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block and erector spinae plane (ESP) block, for intraoperative and postoperative pain relief in patients undergoing laparoscopic nephrectomy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Fifty patients aged 18-80 years with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification I-II scheduled for elective laparoscopic nephrectomy were included after ethical approval and informed consent. Patients were randomly assigned to either Group TAP (receiving TAP block) or Group ESP (receiving ESP block). Postoperatively, all patients received patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) with morphine. We evaluated intraoperative hemodynamics, additional opioid use, resting and coughing pain scores (Visual Analog Scales - VAS), time to first PCA dose, postoperative opioid consumption, rescue analgesic needs, opioid side effects, and patient and surgeon satisfaction.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In Group ESP, postoperative VAS scores at 8 hours and during the first mobilization were significantly lower (p=0.019, p=0.004, respectively) compared to Group TAP. Patient satisfaction was notably higher in Group ESP (p=0.014). However, other postoperative parameters were similar between the groups (p>0.05). These findings held true when considering only radical nephrectomies, with no differences in the assessed parameters between simple and partial nephrectomies.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In conclusion, both TAP and ESP blocks demonstrated comparable effectiveness in postoperative pain management for laparoscopic nephrectomies. Nevertheless, due to lower VAS scores during mobilization and higher patient satisfaction, the ESP block appears to be more effective for multimodal analgesia. Further research is required to comprehensively assess their efficacy in laparoscopic radical nephrectomies.</p>","PeriodicalId":101341,"journal":{"name":"Agri : Agri (Algoloji) Dernegi'nin Yayin organidir = The journal of the Turkish Society of Algology","volume":"37 1","pages":"1-9"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Agri : Agri (Algoloji) Dernegi'nin Yayin organidir = The journal of the Turkish Society of Algology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14744/agri.2024.97947","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

Objectives: In this study, we aimed to compare the efficacy of two regional anesthesia methods, transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block and erector spinae plane (ESP) block, for intraoperative and postoperative pain relief in patients undergoing laparoscopic nephrectomy.

Methods: Fifty patients aged 18-80 years with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification I-II scheduled for elective laparoscopic nephrectomy were included after ethical approval and informed consent. Patients were randomly assigned to either Group TAP (receiving TAP block) or Group ESP (receiving ESP block). Postoperatively, all patients received patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) with morphine. We evaluated intraoperative hemodynamics, additional opioid use, resting and coughing pain scores (Visual Analog Scales - VAS), time to first PCA dose, postoperative opioid consumption, rescue analgesic needs, opioid side effects, and patient and surgeon satisfaction.

Results: In Group ESP, postoperative VAS scores at 8 hours and during the first mobilization were significantly lower (p=0.019, p=0.004, respectively) compared to Group TAP. Patient satisfaction was notably higher in Group ESP (p=0.014). However, other postoperative parameters were similar between the groups (p>0.05). These findings held true when considering only radical nephrectomies, with no differences in the assessed parameters between simple and partial nephrectomies.

Conclusion: In conclusion, both TAP and ESP blocks demonstrated comparable effectiveness in postoperative pain management for laparoscopic nephrectomies. Nevertheless, due to lower VAS scores during mobilization and higher patient satisfaction, the ESP block appears to be more effective for multimodal analgesia. Further research is required to comprehensively assess their efficacy in laparoscopic radical nephrectomies.

超声引导下竖脊平面阻滞与腹横平面阻滞在腹腔镜肾切除术患者围术期镇痛效果的比较。
目的:在本研究中,我们旨在比较两种区域麻醉方法,经腹平面(TAP)阻滞和竖脊平面(ESP)阻滞对腹腔镜肾切除术患者术中和术后疼痛的缓解效果。方法:50例年龄18-80岁,符合美国麻醉学会(ASA)分级I-II的择期腹腔镜肾切除术患者,经伦理审批和知情同意。患者被随机分配到TAP组(接受TAP阻滞)或ESP组(接受ESP阻滞)。术后,所有患者均给予吗啡自控镇痛(PCA)。我们评估了术中血流动力学、额外的阿片类药物使用、静息和咳嗽疼痛评分(视觉模拟量表- VAS)、到首次PCA剂量的时间、术后阿片类药物消耗、救援镇痛需求、阿片类药物副作用以及患者和外科医生的满意度。结果:ESP组术后8 h和首次活动时VAS评分均显著低于TAP组(p=0.019, p=0.004)。ESP组患者满意度显著高于对照组(p=0.014)。两组术后其他参数差异无统计学意义(p < 0.05)。当只考虑根治性肾切除术时,这些发现是正确的,单纯肾切除术和部分肾切除术之间的评估参数没有差异。结论:总之,TAP和ESP阻滞在腹腔镜肾切除术后疼痛管理中表现出相当的有效性。然而,由于活动时较低的VAS评分和较高的患者满意度,ESP阻断似乎对多模态镇痛更有效。需要进一步的研究来全面评估其在腹腔镜根治性肾切除术中的疗效。
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
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信