Efficacy of the intertransverse process block: single or multiple injection? A randomized, non-inferiority, blinded, cross-over trial in healthy volunteers.

IF 5.1 2区 医学 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Martin Vedel Nielsen, Katrine Tanggaard, Sophie Bojesen, Amanda de la Fuente Birkebæk, Anne Sofie Therkelsen, Herman Sørensen, Cecilie Klementsen, Christian Hansen, Mojgan Vazin, Troels Dirch Poulsen, Jens Børglum
{"title":"Efficacy of the intertransverse process block: single or multiple injection? A randomized, non-inferiority, blinded, cross-over trial in healthy volunteers.","authors":"Martin Vedel Nielsen, Katrine Tanggaard, Sophie Bojesen, Amanda de la Fuente Birkebæk, Anne Sofie Therkelsen, Herman Sørensen, Cecilie Klementsen, Christian Hansen, Mojgan Vazin, Troels Dirch Poulsen, Jens Børglum","doi":"10.1136/rapm-2023-104972","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The intertransverse process block is increasingly used to ameliorate postoperative pain following a plethora of surgical procedures involving the thoracic wall. Nevertheless, the optimal approach and cutaneous extent of the sensory block are currently unknown. We aimed to further describe the intertransverse process block, single injection versus multiple injection, and we hypothesized that the single-injection intertransverse process block is a non-inferior technique.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Twelve healthy male volunteers were cross-over randomized to receive either single-injection intertransverse process block with 21 mL ropivacaine 7.5 mg/mL, including two sham injections, at the thoracic level T4/T5 or multiple-injection intertransverse process block with three injections of 7 mL ropivacaine 7.5 mg/mL at the thoracic levels T2/T3, T4/T5 and T6/T7 at the first visit. At the second visit, the other technique was applied on the contralateral hemithorax. A non-inferiority margin of 1.5 anesthetized thoracic dermatomes was chosen.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean difference (95% CI) in the number of anesthetized thoracic dermatomes was 0.82 (-0.41 to 2.05) p<sub>non-inf</sub><0.01 indicating non-inferiority favoring the single-injection technique.Both techniques anesthetized the ipsilateral thoracic wall and demonstrated contralateral cutaneous involvement to a variable extent. The multiple-injection intertransverse process block anesthetized a significantly larger cutaneous area on the posterior hemithorax and decreased mean arterial pressure at 30 and 60 min postblock application. Thoracic thermography showed no intermodality temperature differences yet compared with baseline temperatures both techniques showed significant differences.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Single-injection intertransverse process block is non-inferior to multiple injection in terms of anesthetized thoracic dermatomes. Both techniques generally anesthetize the hemithoracic wall to a variable extent.</p><p><strong>Eu clinical trials register: </strong>2022-501312-34-01.</p>","PeriodicalId":54503,"journal":{"name":"Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"708-715"},"PeriodicalIF":5.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/rapm-2023-104972","RegionNum":2,"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

Introduction: The intertransverse process block is increasingly used to ameliorate postoperative pain following a plethora of surgical procedures involving the thoracic wall. Nevertheless, the optimal approach and cutaneous extent of the sensory block are currently unknown. We aimed to further describe the intertransverse process block, single injection versus multiple injection, and we hypothesized that the single-injection intertransverse process block is a non-inferior technique.

Methods: Twelve healthy male volunteers were cross-over randomized to receive either single-injection intertransverse process block with 21 mL ropivacaine 7.5 mg/mL, including two sham injections, at the thoracic level T4/T5 or multiple-injection intertransverse process block with three injections of 7 mL ropivacaine 7.5 mg/mL at the thoracic levels T2/T3, T4/T5 and T6/T7 at the first visit. At the second visit, the other technique was applied on the contralateral hemithorax. A non-inferiority margin of 1.5 anesthetized thoracic dermatomes was chosen.

Results: The mean difference (95% CI) in the number of anesthetized thoracic dermatomes was 0.82 (-0.41 to 2.05) pnon-inf<0.01 indicating non-inferiority favoring the single-injection technique.Both techniques anesthetized the ipsilateral thoracic wall and demonstrated contralateral cutaneous involvement to a variable extent. The multiple-injection intertransverse process block anesthetized a significantly larger cutaneous area on the posterior hemithorax and decreased mean arterial pressure at 30 and 60 min postblock application. Thoracic thermography showed no intermodality temperature differences yet compared with baseline temperatures both techniques showed significant differences.

Conclusions: Single-injection intertransverse process block is non-inferior to multiple injection in terms of anesthetized thoracic dermatomes. Both techniques generally anesthetize the hemithoracic wall to a variable extent.

Eu clinical trials register: 2022-501312-34-01.

横突间过程阻滞的疗效:单次注射还是多次注射?一项在健康志愿者中进行的随机、非劣效性、盲法、交叉试验。
引言:在大量涉及胸壁的手术后,横突间阻滞越来越多地用于减轻术后疼痛。然而,目前尚不清楚感觉阻滞的最佳方法和皮肤范围。我们旨在进一步描述横突间过程阻滞,单次注射与多次注射,我们假设单次注射横突间进程阻滞是一种非劣化技术。方法:12名健康男性志愿者被交叉随机化,接受单次注射横突间阻滞,其中21名 mL罗哌卡因7.5 mg/mL,包括两次胸部T4/T5水平的假注射,或多次注射横突间过程阻滞,三次注射7 mL罗哌卡因7.5 在第一次就诊时在胸部水平T2/T3、T4/T5和T6/T7为mg/mL。在第二次就诊时,另一项技术应用于对侧半胸。选择1.5个麻醉的胸部皮肤节的非劣效性界限。结果:麻醉胸部皮肤团数量的平均差异(95%CI)为0.82(-0.41至2.05)pnon inf。结论:单次注射横突间阻滞在麻醉胸部皮肤组中并不劣于多次注射。这两种技术通常在不同程度上麻醉半胸壁。欧盟临床试验注册号:2022-501312-34-01。
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
8.50
自引率
11.80%
发文量
175
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine, the official publication of the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine (ASRA), is a monthly journal that publishes peer-reviewed scientific and clinical studies to advance the understanding and clinical application of regional techniques for surgical anesthesia and postoperative analgesia. Coverage includes intraoperative regional techniques, perioperative pain, chronic pain, obstetric anesthesia, pediatric anesthesia, outcome studies, and complications. Published for over thirty years, this respected journal also serves as the official publication of the European Society of Regional Anaesthesia and Pain Therapy (ESRA), the Asian and Oceanic Society of Regional Anesthesia (AOSRA), the Latin American Society of Regional Anesthesia (LASRA), the African Society for Regional Anesthesia (AFSRA), and the Academy of Regional Anaesthesia of India (AORA).
×
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