Comparison of Costotransverse Foramen Block with Thoracic Paravertebral Block and Erector Spinae Plane Block for Patients Undergoing Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Non-Inferiority Trial.

IF 2.5 3区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Journal of Pain Research Pub Date : 2025-05-13 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.2147/JPR.S518558
Jing Li, Peiqi Shao, Hong Wen, Danxu Ma, Lina Yang, Jianshuai He, Jia Jiang
{"title":"Comparison of Costotransverse Foramen Block with Thoracic Paravertebral Block and Erector Spinae Plane Block for Patients Undergoing Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Non-Inferiority Trial.","authors":"Jing Li, Peiqi Shao, Hong Wen, Danxu Ma, Lina Yang, Jianshuai He, Jia Jiang","doi":"10.2147/JPR.S518558","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy of costotransverse foramen block for postoperative analgesia in video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS).</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>Seventy-five patients undergoing elective VATS under general anaesthesia were recruited to this double-blind, non- inferiority trial and randomized to preoperatively receive a thoracic paravertebral block (TPVB group), a costotransverse foramen block (CTFB group), or an erector spinae plane block (ESPB group) with 0.5% ropivacaine 20 mL at T5 level. The primary outcome was the postoperative numerical rating scale pain score assessed at 6 h. Secondary outcomes included pain scores at other time points, total opioids consumption at 24 h postoperatively, time to first patient-controlled analgesia pump bolus, number of patients requiring rescue analgesia, dermatomal coverage at 30 min after block, time to perform the block, satisfaction scores of the analgesic effect, block-related side effects, and other complications. The health-related quality of life was evaluated one month after surgery.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The pain scores at 6 h after surgery were 0 (0, 3) in the TPVB group, 0 (0, 2) in the CTFB group, and 4 (3, 4) in the ESPB group. The 95% CI of median difference was 0 to 0 comparing CTFB with TPVB and -4 to -2 comparing CTFB with ESPB. Both the upper 95% CI limits were lower than the predefined noninferiority margin of 1. The pain scores at postanaesthesia care unit, 1 h, 6 h and 12 h after surgery, number of block dermatomes, patient satisfaction scores, time to perform the block as well as the time to first analgesia pump bolus were significantly different between the CTFB group and ESPB group. No differences were detected in other secondary outcomes.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Ultrasound-guided CTFB provided noninferior analgesia compared to TPVB at 6 h after VATS. Additionally, CTFB might provide better analgesia to ESPB although larger confirmatory researches for superiority are further warranted.</p>","PeriodicalId":16661,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pain Research","volume":"18 ","pages":"2427-2438"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12087602/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Pain Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/JPR.S518558","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: This study aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy of costotransverse foramen block for postoperative analgesia in video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS).

Patients and methods: Seventy-five patients undergoing elective VATS under general anaesthesia were recruited to this double-blind, non- inferiority trial and randomized to preoperatively receive a thoracic paravertebral block (TPVB group), a costotransverse foramen block (CTFB group), or an erector spinae plane block (ESPB group) with 0.5% ropivacaine 20 mL at T5 level. The primary outcome was the postoperative numerical rating scale pain score assessed at 6 h. Secondary outcomes included pain scores at other time points, total opioids consumption at 24 h postoperatively, time to first patient-controlled analgesia pump bolus, number of patients requiring rescue analgesia, dermatomal coverage at 30 min after block, time to perform the block, satisfaction scores of the analgesic effect, block-related side effects, and other complications. The health-related quality of life was evaluated one month after surgery.

Results: The pain scores at 6 h after surgery were 0 (0, 3) in the TPVB group, 0 (0, 2) in the CTFB group, and 4 (3, 4) in the ESPB group. The 95% CI of median difference was 0 to 0 comparing CTFB with TPVB and -4 to -2 comparing CTFB with ESPB. Both the upper 95% CI limits were lower than the predefined noninferiority margin of 1. The pain scores at postanaesthesia care unit, 1 h, 6 h and 12 h after surgery, number of block dermatomes, patient satisfaction scores, time to perform the block as well as the time to first analgesia pump bolus were significantly different between the CTFB group and ESPB group. No differences were detected in other secondary outcomes.

Conclusion: Ultrasound-guided CTFB provided noninferior analgesia compared to TPVB at 6 h after VATS. Additionally, CTFB might provide better analgesia to ESPB although larger confirmatory researches for superiority are further warranted.

胸腔镜手术中肋横孔阻滞与胸椎旁阻滞和竖脊面阻滞的比较:一项随机对照非效性试验。
目的:本研究旨在探讨肋横孔阻滞用于胸腔镜手术(VATS)术后镇痛的安全性和有效性。患者和方法:75例在全麻下接受选择性VATS的患者被招募到这项双盲、非效性试验中,并随机分为术前接受胸椎旁阻滞(TPVB组)、肋横孔阻滞(CTFB组)或竖棘平面阻滞(ESPB组),0.5%罗哌卡因20ml, T5水平。主要终点是术后6小时的数值评定量表疼痛评分。次要终点包括其他时间点的疼痛评分、术后24小时阿片类药物总用量、首次患者自控镇痛泵注射时间、需要抢救镇痛的患者人数、阻滞后30分钟皮肤覆盖范围、阻滞时间、镇痛效果满意度评分、阻滞相关副作用和其他并发症。术后1个月评估与健康相关的生活质量。结果:TPVB组术后6 h疼痛评分为0 (0,3),CTFB组为0 (0,2),ESPB组为4(3,4)。CTFB与TPVB比较中位差的95% CI为0 ~ 0,CTFB与ESPB比较中位差的95% CI为-4 ~ 2。两个95% CI上限均低于预定的非劣效性裕度1。CTFB组与ESPB组麻醉后护理单元疼痛评分、术后1 h、6 h、12 h、皮节阻滞数、患者满意度评分、阻滞时间及首次注射镇痛泵时间差异均有统计学意义。其他次要结局没有发现差异。结论:超声引导下CTFB与TPVB相比,在VATS后6 h具有非亚效性镇痛作用。此外,CTFB可能对ESPB有更好的镇痛作用,但其优势有待进一步的验证性研究。
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
Journal of Pain Research
Journal of Pain Research CLINICAL NEUROLOGY-
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
3.70%
发文量
411
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Pain Research is an international, peer-reviewed, open access journal that welcomes laboratory and clinical findings in the fields of pain research and the prevention and management of pain. Original research, reviews, symposium reports, hypothesis formation and commentaries are all considered for publication. Additionally, the journal now welcomes the submission of pain-policy-related editorials and commentaries, particularly in regard to ethical, regulatory, forensic, and other legal issues in pain medicine, and to the education of pain practitioners and researchers.
×
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