S Coppens,D F Hoogma,G Dewinter,A Neyrinck,P Van Loon,B Stessel,J Hassanin,J Vandenbrande,B Du Pont,Y Jansen,S Fieuws,S Rex
{"title":"Erector spinae plane block versus intercostal nerve blocks in uniportal videoscopic assisted thoracic surgery: a multicenter, double-blind, prospective randomized placebo controlled trial.","authors":"S Coppens,D F Hoogma,G Dewinter,A Neyrinck,P Van Loon,B Stessel,J Hassanin,J Vandenbrande,B Du Pont,Y Jansen,S Fieuws,S Rex","doi":"10.1097/aln.0000000000005625","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND\r\nAlthough, intercostal nerve blocks are sometimes approached with caution due to concerns about potentially high local anesthetic uptake, they remain a valuable tool in specific clinical situations. On the other hand, the erector spinae plane block is nowadays often favored for its broader coverage and versatility. We hypothesized that the intercostal nerve block, applied directly by surgeons under direct vision in patients undergoing uniportal video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery, might offer superior analgesia and fewer complications compared to the erector spinae plane block.\r\n\r\nMETHODS\r\nIn this multi-center, double-blind placebo controlled, randomized trial, 100 patients undergoing uniportal thoracoscopic surgery (wedge excision or lobectomy) within an enhanced recovery program received either a surgical intercostal nerve block under thoracoscopic guidance or an ultrasound-guided erector spinae plane block, followed by 30 ml of ropivacaine 0.5% (n=50) or saline (n=50). Primary outcome measured was 12-hour morphine consumption post-extubation. Secondary outcomes included 24-hour morphine use, pain severity, rescue analgesia need, postoperative complications, and length of stay. Plasma levels of local anesthetics were also assessed.\r\n\r\nRESULTS\r\nThe intercostal nerve block group had significantly lower mean 12-hour morphine consumption compared to the erector spinae plane block group (10.9 mg vs. 17.6 mg, p=0.0015), as well as lower mean 24-hour consumption (18.7 mg vs. 26.7 mg, p=0.018). Intercostal blocks also led to lower pain scores in the first two hours postoperatively and a reduced need for rescue analgesia (16% vs. 40%, p=0.0033). No differences were found in patient satisfaction, complications, or length of stay. Notably, the erector spinae plane block group showed higher systemic absorption of local anesthetics.\r\n\r\nCONCLUSION\r\nFor uniportal thoracoscopic surgery, intercostal nerve block significantly reduces morphine consumption and systemic anesthetic absorption compared to erector spinae plane block.","PeriodicalId":7970,"journal":{"name":"Anesthesiology","volume":"41 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anesthesiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/aln.0000000000005625","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
BACKGROUND
Although, intercostal nerve blocks are sometimes approached with caution due to concerns about potentially high local anesthetic uptake, they remain a valuable tool in specific clinical situations. On the other hand, the erector spinae plane block is nowadays often favored for its broader coverage and versatility. We hypothesized that the intercostal nerve block, applied directly by surgeons under direct vision in patients undergoing uniportal video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery, might offer superior analgesia and fewer complications compared to the erector spinae plane block.
METHODS
In this multi-center, double-blind placebo controlled, randomized trial, 100 patients undergoing uniportal thoracoscopic surgery (wedge excision or lobectomy) within an enhanced recovery program received either a surgical intercostal nerve block under thoracoscopic guidance or an ultrasound-guided erector spinae plane block, followed by 30 ml of ropivacaine 0.5% (n=50) or saline (n=50). Primary outcome measured was 12-hour morphine consumption post-extubation. Secondary outcomes included 24-hour morphine use, pain severity, rescue analgesia need, postoperative complications, and length of stay. Plasma levels of local anesthetics were also assessed.
RESULTS
The intercostal nerve block group had significantly lower mean 12-hour morphine consumption compared to the erector spinae plane block group (10.9 mg vs. 17.6 mg, p=0.0015), as well as lower mean 24-hour consumption (18.7 mg vs. 26.7 mg, p=0.018). Intercostal blocks also led to lower pain scores in the first two hours postoperatively and a reduced need for rescue analgesia (16% vs. 40%, p=0.0033). No differences were found in patient satisfaction, complications, or length of stay. Notably, the erector spinae plane block group showed higher systemic absorption of local anesthetics.
CONCLUSION
For uniportal thoracoscopic surgery, intercostal nerve block significantly reduces morphine consumption and systemic anesthetic absorption compared to erector spinae plane block.
期刊介绍:
With its establishment in 1940, Anesthesiology has emerged as a prominent leader in the field of anesthesiology, encompassing perioperative, critical care, and pain medicine. As the esteemed journal of the American Society of Anesthesiologists, Anesthesiology operates independently with full editorial freedom. Its distinguished Editorial Board, comprising renowned professionals from across the globe, drives the advancement of the specialty by presenting innovative research through immediate open access to select articles and granting free access to all published articles after a six-month period. Furthermore, Anesthesiology actively promotes groundbreaking studies through an influential press release program. The journal's unwavering commitment lies in the dissemination of exemplary work that enhances clinical practice and revolutionizes the practice of medicine within our discipline.