Erector spinae plane block (ESPB) vs. pericapsular nerve group (PENG) block in total hip arthroplasty in elderly patients: a randomized, double-blinded, controlled trial.

IF 1.6 Q2 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Tomasz Reysner, Grzegorz Kowalski, Małgorzata Reysner, Lukasz Lapaj, Przemyslaw Daroszewski, Katarzyna Wieczorowska-Tobis
{"title":"Erector spinae plane block (ESPB) vs. pericapsular nerve group (PENG) block in total hip arthroplasty in elderly patients: a randomized, double-blinded, controlled trial.","authors":"Tomasz Reysner, Grzegorz Kowalski, Małgorzata Reysner, Lukasz Lapaj, Przemyslaw Daroszewski, Katarzyna Wieczorowska-Tobis","doi":"10.5114/ait/203170","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>This study evaluated the efficacy of ultrasound-guided erector spinae plane block (ESPB) and pericapsular nerve group (PENG) block under spinal anesthesia for postoperative analgesia in elderly patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>In this randomized, controlled, double-blind study, 90 elderly patients (aged 67-89 years, ASA II and III), scheduled for total hip arthroplasty under spinal anesthesia were randomly allocated to three groups: PENG block (<i>n</i> = 30), ESPB (<i>n</i> = 30), and Control group (<i>n</i> = 30). Ultrasound-guided blocks were administered using 20 mL of 0.2% ropivacaine. The primary outcome was total opioid consumption over 48 hours. Secondary outcomes included pain scores, time to first rescue opioid analgesia, quadriceps muscle strength, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), and platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Opioid consumption within 48 hours was significantly lower in both the PENG (3.5 ± 4.0) and ESPB (3.4 ± 3.8) groups compared to the Control group (16.07 ± 3.8 ), with P < 0.001, and no significant difference between PENG and ESPB groups (<i>P</i> = 1.0). Time to first rescue analgesia was longer in the PENG (12.3 ± 3.2) and ESPB (11.2 ± 2.9) groups relative to the Control group (4.2 ± 1.1), <i>P</i> < 0.001. Pain scores remained consistently lower in both intervention groups at all time points compared to the Control group. Quadriceps strength was lower in the PENG group at 6 hours postoperatively compared to ESPB. NLR and PLR values were lower in both block groups than in the Control group.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Ultrasound-guided PENG and ESPB are effective for postoperative analgesia in elderly patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty, significantly reducing opioid requirements and enhancing recovery quality.</p>","PeriodicalId":7750,"journal":{"name":"Anaesthesiology intensive therapy","volume":"57 1","pages":"90-98"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12210365/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anaesthesiology intensive therapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5114/ait/203170","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: This study evaluated the efficacy of ultrasound-guided erector spinae plane block (ESPB) and pericapsular nerve group (PENG) block under spinal anesthesia for postoperative analgesia in elderly patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty.

Material and methods: In this randomized, controlled, double-blind study, 90 elderly patients (aged 67-89 years, ASA II and III), scheduled for total hip arthroplasty under spinal anesthesia were randomly allocated to three groups: PENG block (n = 30), ESPB (n = 30), and Control group (n = 30). Ultrasound-guided blocks were administered using 20 mL of 0.2% ropivacaine. The primary outcome was total opioid consumption over 48 hours. Secondary outcomes included pain scores, time to first rescue opioid analgesia, quadriceps muscle strength, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), and platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR).

Results: Opioid consumption within 48 hours was significantly lower in both the PENG (3.5 ± 4.0) and ESPB (3.4 ± 3.8) groups compared to the Control group (16.07 ± 3.8 ), with P < 0.001, and no significant difference between PENG and ESPB groups (P = 1.0). Time to first rescue analgesia was longer in the PENG (12.3 ± 3.2) and ESPB (11.2 ± 2.9) groups relative to the Control group (4.2 ± 1.1), P < 0.001. Pain scores remained consistently lower in both intervention groups at all time points compared to the Control group. Quadriceps strength was lower in the PENG group at 6 hours postoperatively compared to ESPB. NLR and PLR values were lower in both block groups than in the Control group.

Conclusions: Ultrasound-guided PENG and ESPB are effective for postoperative analgesia in elderly patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty, significantly reducing opioid requirements and enhancing recovery quality.

竖脊肌平面阻滞(ESPB) vs.囊包神经阻滞(PENG)在老年患者全髋关节置换术中的应用:一项随机、双盲、对照试验。
简介:本研究评价了超声引导下脊柱竖肌平面阻滞(ESPB)和囊周神经群阻滞(PENG)在脊柱麻醉下对老年全髋关节置换术患者术后镇痛的效果。材料与方法:本研究采用随机、对照、双盲方法,将90例在脊髓麻醉下行全髋关节置换术的老年患者(年龄67-89岁,ASA II和III级)随机分为3组:PENG阻滞组(n = 30)、ESPB组(n = 30)和对照组(n = 30)。超声引导阻滞使用20ml 0.2%罗哌卡因。主要终点是48小时内阿片类药物的总消耗量。次要结局包括疼痛评分、阿片类药物首次镇痛时间、股四头肌肌力、中性粒细胞与淋巴细胞比值(NLR)和血小板与淋巴细胞比值(PLR)。结果:与对照组(16.07±3.8)相比,PENG组(3.5±4.0)和ESPB组(3.4±3.8)48 h内阿片类药物消耗均显著降低(P < 0.001), PENG组与ESPB组之间无显著差异(P = 1.0)。彭组(12.3±3.2)和ESPB组(11.2±2.9)首次抢救镇痛时间较对照组(4.2±1.1)长,P < 0.001。与对照组相比,两个干预组在所有时间点的疼痛评分始终较低。与ESPB相比,术后6小时,PENG组的股四头肌力量较低。两组患者NLR和PLR值均低于对照组。结论:超声引导下的PENG和ESPB对老年全髋关节置换术患者术后镇痛有效,可显著减少阿片类药物需求,提高康复质量。
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
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
5.90%
发文量
48
审稿时长
25 weeks
×
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