Analgesic Efficacy of Thoracoscopic Direct-View Versus Ultrasound-Guided Thoracic Paravertebral Block in Multi-Port Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Lung Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Non-Inferiority Study.

IF 4.7 2区 医学 Q1 CHEMISTRY, MEDICINAL
Drug Design, Development and Therapy Pub Date : 2025-03-12 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.2147/DDDT.S492040
Yao Tong, Jimin Wu, Xuhui Wu, Yunchang Mo, Faxing Wang
{"title":"Analgesic Efficacy of Thoracoscopic Direct-View Versus Ultrasound-Guided Thoracic Paravertebral Block in Multi-Port Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Lung Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Non-Inferiority Study.","authors":"Yao Tong, Jimin Wu, Xuhui Wu, Yunchang Mo, Faxing Wang","doi":"10.2147/DDDT.S492040","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study compares the analgesic effects of the Thoracoscopic Direct-view Thoracic Paravertebral Nerve Block (DTPVB) with those of the Ultrasound-guided Thoracic Paravertebral Nerve Block (UTPVB), providing a clinical reference.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>Sixty-eight patients undergoing three-port video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) with general anesthesia were randomly assigned to either the DTPVB group (Group D, n = 34) or the UTPVB group (Group U, n = 34). Both groups received a 10 mL injection of 0.75% ropivacaine at the T4 and T7 interspaces. Primary outcomes were cumulative sufentanil equivalents from the start of lung manipulation to 24 hours postoperatively, with group differences assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 5 μg (Δ). Secondary outcomes include postoperative pain scores, analgesic consumption, patient satisfaction, adverse effects, and other related indicators.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The cumulative use of sufentanil equivalents from the start of lung manipulation to 24 hours postoperatively was 35.0 ± 6.1 μg in Group D and 33.2 ± 5.6 μg in Group U, with no significant difference (P = 0.217). The difference in cumulative sufentanil equivalents (Group D minus Group U) was 1.8 (95% CI -1.07, 4.65), within the non-inferiority margin of 5 (Δ). Postoperative pain scores, analgesic consumption, adverse effects, and complications were similar were similar between groups. However, DTPVB was associated with lower anxiety and higher satisfaction (P<0.001). At 15 minutes post-block, ropivacaine plasma concentrations were higher in Group D (P=0.024).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>DTPVB, via transmural pleural puncture, was non-inferior to UTPVB in analgesic efficacy from the beginning of the manipulation of the lungs in operation to 24h postoperatively. DTPVB provides a good alternative, especially for patients who are anxious before surgery, have difficulty cooperating with UTPVB, or in cases where UTPVB puncture fails. However, when using high concentrations of ropivacaine, greater vigilance for toxicity is required.</p>","PeriodicalId":11290,"journal":{"name":"Drug Design, Development and Therapy","volume":"19 ","pages":"1825-1838"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11911234/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Drug Design, Development and Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/DDDT.S492040","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, MEDICINAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: This study compares the analgesic effects of the Thoracoscopic Direct-view Thoracic Paravertebral Nerve Block (DTPVB) with those of the Ultrasound-guided Thoracic Paravertebral Nerve Block (UTPVB), providing a clinical reference.

Patients and methods: Sixty-eight patients undergoing three-port video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) with general anesthesia were randomly assigned to either the DTPVB group (Group D, n = 34) or the UTPVB group (Group U, n = 34). Both groups received a 10 mL injection of 0.75% ropivacaine at the T4 and T7 interspaces. Primary outcomes were cumulative sufentanil equivalents from the start of lung manipulation to 24 hours postoperatively, with group differences assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 5 μg (Δ). Secondary outcomes include postoperative pain scores, analgesic consumption, patient satisfaction, adverse effects, and other related indicators.

Results: The cumulative use of sufentanil equivalents from the start of lung manipulation to 24 hours postoperatively was 35.0 ± 6.1 μg in Group D and 33.2 ± 5.6 μg in Group U, with no significant difference (P = 0.217). The difference in cumulative sufentanil equivalents (Group D minus Group U) was 1.8 (95% CI -1.07, 4.65), within the non-inferiority margin of 5 (Δ). Postoperative pain scores, analgesic consumption, adverse effects, and complications were similar were similar between groups. However, DTPVB was associated with lower anxiety and higher satisfaction (P<0.001). At 15 minutes post-block, ropivacaine plasma concentrations were higher in Group D (P=0.024).

Conclusion: DTPVB, via transmural pleural puncture, was non-inferior to UTPVB in analgesic efficacy from the beginning of the manipulation of the lungs in operation to 24h postoperatively. DTPVB provides a good alternative, especially for patients who are anxious before surgery, have difficulty cooperating with UTPVB, or in cases where UTPVB puncture fails. However, when using high concentrations of ropivacaine, greater vigilance for toxicity is required.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Drug Design, Development and Therapy
Drug Design, Development and Therapy CHEMISTRY, MEDICINAL-PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
CiteScore
9.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
382
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Drug Design, Development and Therapy is an international, peer-reviewed, open access journal that spans the spectrum of drug design, discovery and development through to clinical applications. The journal is characterized by the rapid reporting of high-quality original research, reviews, expert opinions, commentary and clinical studies in all therapeutic areas. Specific topics covered by the journal include: Drug target identification and validation Phenotypic screening and target deconvolution Biochemical analyses of drug targets and their pathways New methods or relevant applications in molecular/drug design and computer-aided drug discovery* Design, synthesis, and biological evaluation of novel biologically active compounds (including diagnostics or chemical probes) Structural or molecular biological studies elucidating molecular recognition processes Fragment-based drug discovery Pharmaceutical/red biotechnology Isolation, structural characterization, (bio)synthesis, bioengineering and pharmacological evaluation of natural products** Distribution, pharmacokinetics and metabolic transformations of drugs or biologically active compounds in drug development Drug delivery and formulation (design and characterization of dosage forms, release mechanisms and in vivo testing) Preclinical development studies Translational animal models Mechanisms of action and signalling pathways Toxicology Gene therapy, cell therapy and immunotherapy Personalized medicine and pharmacogenomics Clinical drug evaluation Patient safety and sustained use of medicines.
×
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