Multimodal analgesia with thoracic paravertebral block decrease pain and side effects in mastectomy patients.

IF 2.4
Pei-Chin Liu, Fu-Wei Su, Yi-Fang Tsai, Yen-Shu Lin, Chun-Sung Sung, Ling-Ming Tseng, Wei-Nung Teng
{"title":"Multimodal analgesia with thoracic paravertebral block decrease pain and side effects in mastectomy patients.","authors":"Pei-Chin Liu, Fu-Wei Su, Yi-Fang Tsai, Yen-Shu Lin, Chun-Sung Sung, Ling-Ming Tseng, Wei-Nung Teng","doi":"10.1097/JCMA.0000000000001218","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols incorporating multimodal analgesia (MMA) have become increasingly popular for breast cancer surgery. Our study evaluated an ERAS approach that combined nonintubated general anesthesia (GA) with thoracic paravertebral block (TPVB) as part of the MMA and compared it with traditional GA. Postoperative outcomes were assessed using numerical rating scale (NRS) pain scores, total analgesic consumption, and postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We reviewed the medical records of 60 female patients aged 30 to 85 years who underwent unilateral mastectomy with or without sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB). Thirty patients received nonintubated GA with a regional block (MMA group), whereas the remaining 30 patients received conventional GA and were matched based on their anesthesia records. Postoperative analgesics, including pethidine and tramadol, were converted into intravenous morphine equivalents. We compared the groups using paired t tests for age, height, weight, operation duration, NRS scores, total analgesic dosage, and the Fisher exact test for PONV rates.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The MMA group showed significantly lower NRS scores ( p < 0.001) and total analgesic consumption ( p < 0.001) than the GA group. Although PONV rates were lower in the MMA group (0% vs 13%, p = 0.112), this difference was not statistically significant, likely due to the effective PONV management in the GA group with dexamethasone or 5-Hydroxytryptamine type 3 (5HT-3) antagonist. There was no significant difference in pain scores ( p = 0.722) or the need for additional analgesics ( p = 0.419) between double- and triple-level TPVB.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Nonintubated GA with total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) and MMA using TPVB is a viable and safe alternative for breast cancer surgery. It results in reduced pain scores and analgesic needs compared with conventional GA, with PONV outcomes comparable to those managed with standard intravenous medications.</p>","PeriodicalId":94115,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Chinese Medical Association : JCMA","volume":" ","pages":"486-491"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Chinese Medical Association : JCMA","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/JCMA.0000000000001218","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/12 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols incorporating multimodal analgesia (MMA) have become increasingly popular for breast cancer surgery. Our study evaluated an ERAS approach that combined nonintubated general anesthesia (GA) with thoracic paravertebral block (TPVB) as part of the MMA and compared it with traditional GA. Postoperative outcomes were assessed using numerical rating scale (NRS) pain scores, total analgesic consumption, and postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV).

Methods: We reviewed the medical records of 60 female patients aged 30 to 85 years who underwent unilateral mastectomy with or without sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB). Thirty patients received nonintubated GA with a regional block (MMA group), whereas the remaining 30 patients received conventional GA and were matched based on their anesthesia records. Postoperative analgesics, including pethidine and tramadol, were converted into intravenous morphine equivalents. We compared the groups using paired t tests for age, height, weight, operation duration, NRS scores, total analgesic dosage, and the Fisher exact test for PONV rates.

Results: The MMA group showed significantly lower NRS scores ( p < 0.001) and total analgesic consumption ( p < 0.001) than the GA group. Although PONV rates were lower in the MMA group (0% vs 13%, p = 0.112), this difference was not statistically significant, likely due to the effective PONV management in the GA group with dexamethasone or 5-Hydroxytryptamine type 3 (5HT-3) antagonist. There was no significant difference in pain scores ( p = 0.722) or the need for additional analgesics ( p = 0.419) between double- and triple-level TPVB.

Conclusion: Nonintubated GA with total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) and MMA using TPVB is a viable and safe alternative for breast cancer surgery. It results in reduced pain scores and analgesic needs compared with conventional GA, with PONV outcomes comparable to those managed with standard intravenous medications.

胸椎旁阻滞多模式镇痛可减轻乳房切除术患者的疼痛和不良反应。
背景:采用多模式镇痛(MMA)的增强术后恢复(ERAS)方案在乳腺癌手术中越来越受欢迎。我们的研究评估了一种ERAS方法,该方法将非插管全身麻醉与胸椎旁阻滞(TPVB)联合作为MMA的一部分,并将其与传统全身麻醉(GA)进行了比较。术后结果采用数值评定量表(NRS)疼痛评分、镇痛药总消耗量和恶心呕吐(PONV)进行评估。方法:我们回顾了60例30-85岁女性单侧乳房切除术伴或不伴前哨淋巴结活检(SLNB)的医疗记录。30例患者接受非插管全麻加局部阻滞(MMA组),其余30例患者接受常规GA,并根据麻醉记录进行匹配。术后镇痛药,包括哌替啶和曲马多,转化为静脉吗啡等效物。我们使用配对t检验比较各组的年龄、身高、体重、手术时间、NRS评分、总镇痛剂量和PONV率的Fisher精确检验。结果:MMA组NRS评分(p < 0.001)和镇痛总消耗(p < 0.001)明显低于GA组。虽然MMA组的PONV率较低(0% vs 13%, p = 0.112),但这种差异没有统计学意义,可能是由于GA组使用地塞米松或5HT-3拮抗剂有效地控制了PONV。两级和三级TPVB在疼痛评分(p = 0.722)和需要额外镇痛药(p = 0.419)方面无显著差异。结论:TPVB非插管全麻加TIVA和MMA是一种可行、安全的乳腺癌手术替代方案。与传统GA相比,其疼痛评分和镇痛需求降低,PONV结果与标准静脉注射药物治疗的结果相当。
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