Intercostal serratus plane block versus posterior quadratuus lumbar block in laparoscopic nephrectomy: A randomized, controlled, double-blind study.

M T Fernandez Martin, M G Matesanz, J Andres, H Muñoz, M F Muñoz, A Fadrique, P Castillo, P Casas, S Lopez
{"title":"Intercostal serratus plane block versus posterior quadratuus lumbar block in laparoscopic nephrectomy: A randomized, controlled, double-blind study.","authors":"M T Fernandez Martin, M G Matesanz, J Andres, H Muñoz, M F Muñoz, A Fadrique, P Castillo, P Casas, S Lopez","doi":"10.1016/j.redare.2025.501728","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Even though laparoscopic nephrectomy improves the quality of postoperative recovery, it still causes moderate to severe pain. Our objective was to determine whether serratus intercostal plane block (SIPB) was noninferior to posterior quadratus lumborum block (QLB) in terms of pain control and quality of recovery.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This multicentre, controlled, randomized, blinded study had a sample size of 120 patients who were randomly assigned to SIPB, QLB, and control groups prior to scheduled laparoscopic nephrectomy. We collected the following variables: postoperative dynamic pain scores at 0, 6, 12, and 24 h, postoperative quality of recovery (QoR15), and total opioid consumption (fentanyl and morphine).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our results show that SIPB was non-inferior to QLB with regard to the primary endpoint (NRS 0.4/0.9) and quality of recovery (QoR15 112.7/106.85) (p 0.27). Opioid consumption (fentanyl p 0.37 and morphine p 0.9) was similar in the SIPB and QLB groups, and both groups were superior to controls in terms of intraoperative fentanyl consumption (p 0.001) and pain control (p < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>SIPB and QLB showed adequate postoperative pain control, good quality of recovery and lower fentanyl consumption, especially compared to the control group.</p>","PeriodicalId":94196,"journal":{"name":"Revista espanola de anestesiologia y reanimacion","volume":" ","pages":"501728"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista espanola de anestesiologia y reanimacion","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.redare.2025.501728","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

Background: Even though laparoscopic nephrectomy improves the quality of postoperative recovery, it still causes moderate to severe pain. Our objective was to determine whether serratus intercostal plane block (SIPB) was noninferior to posterior quadratus lumborum block (QLB) in terms of pain control and quality of recovery.

Methods: This multicentre, controlled, randomized, blinded study had a sample size of 120 patients who were randomly assigned to SIPB, QLB, and control groups prior to scheduled laparoscopic nephrectomy. We collected the following variables: postoperative dynamic pain scores at 0, 6, 12, and 24 h, postoperative quality of recovery (QoR15), and total opioid consumption (fentanyl and morphine).

Results: Our results show that SIPB was non-inferior to QLB with regard to the primary endpoint (NRS 0.4/0.9) and quality of recovery (QoR15 112.7/106.85) (p 0.27). Opioid consumption (fentanyl p 0.37 and morphine p 0.9) was similar in the SIPB and QLB groups, and both groups were superior to controls in terms of intraoperative fentanyl consumption (p 0.001) and pain control (p < 0.001).

Conclusions: SIPB and QLB showed adequate postoperative pain control, good quality of recovery and lower fentanyl consumption, especially compared to the control group.

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:481959085
Book学术官方微信