Erector Spinae Plane Block as an Analgesic Intervention in Acute Rib Fractures: A Scoping Review.

IF 1.5 Q3 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Michael Jiang, Varun Peri, Bobby Ou Yang, Jaewon Chang, Douglas Hacking
{"title":"Erector Spinae Plane Block as an Analgesic Intervention in Acute Rib Fractures: A Scoping Review.","authors":"Michael Jiang,&nbsp;Varun Peri,&nbsp;Bobby Ou Yang,&nbsp;Jaewon Chang,&nbsp;Douglas Hacking","doi":"10.2147/LRA.S414056","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Rib fractures are a common sequelae of chest trauma and are associated with significant morbidity. The erector spinae nerve block (ESB) has been proposed as an alternative first-line regional technique for rib fractures due to ease of administration and minimal complication profile. We aimed to investigate the current literature surrounding this topic with a focus on pain and respiratory outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A comprehensive literature search was performed on the Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane databases. Keywords of \"erector spinae block\" and \"rib fractures\" were used to form the search strategy. Papers published in English investigating ESB as an analgesic intervention for acute rib fracture were included. Exclusion criteria were operative rib fixation, or where the indication for ESB was not rib fracture.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were 37 studies which met the inclusion criteria for this scoping review. Of these, 31 studies reported on pain outcomes and demonstrated a 40% decrease in pain scores post administration within the first 24 hours. Respiratory parameters were reported in 8 studies where an increase in incentive spirometry was demonstrated. Respiratory complication was not consistently reported. ESB was associated with minimal complications; only 5 cases of haematoma and infection were (incidence 0.6%) reported, none of which required further intervention.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Current literature surrounding ESB in rib fracture management provides a positive qualitative evaluation of efficacy and safety. Improvements in pain and respiratory parameters were almost universal. The notable outcome from this review was the improved safety profile of ESB. The ESB was not associated with complications requiring intervention even in the setting of anticoagulation and coagulopathy. There still remains a paucity of large cohort, prospective data. Moreover, no current studies reflect an improvement in respiratory complication rates compared to current techniques. Taken together, these areas should be the focus of any future research.</p>","PeriodicalId":18203,"journal":{"name":"Local and Regional Anesthesia","volume":"16 ","pages":"81-90"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/c7/3e/lra-16-81.PMC10275321.pdf","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Local and Regional Anesthesia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/LRA.S414056","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Introduction: Rib fractures are a common sequelae of chest trauma and are associated with significant morbidity. The erector spinae nerve block (ESB) has been proposed as an alternative first-line regional technique for rib fractures due to ease of administration and minimal complication profile. We aimed to investigate the current literature surrounding this topic with a focus on pain and respiratory outcomes.

Methods: A comprehensive literature search was performed on the Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane databases. Keywords of "erector spinae block" and "rib fractures" were used to form the search strategy. Papers published in English investigating ESB as an analgesic intervention for acute rib fracture were included. Exclusion criteria were operative rib fixation, or where the indication for ESB was not rib fracture.

Results: There were 37 studies which met the inclusion criteria for this scoping review. Of these, 31 studies reported on pain outcomes and demonstrated a 40% decrease in pain scores post administration within the first 24 hours. Respiratory parameters were reported in 8 studies where an increase in incentive spirometry was demonstrated. Respiratory complication was not consistently reported. ESB was associated with minimal complications; only 5 cases of haematoma and infection were (incidence 0.6%) reported, none of which required further intervention.

Discussion: Current literature surrounding ESB in rib fracture management provides a positive qualitative evaluation of efficacy and safety. Improvements in pain and respiratory parameters were almost universal. The notable outcome from this review was the improved safety profile of ESB. The ESB was not associated with complications requiring intervention even in the setting of anticoagulation and coagulopathy. There still remains a paucity of large cohort, prospective data. Moreover, no current studies reflect an improvement in respiratory complication rates compared to current techniques. Taken together, these areas should be the focus of any future research.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

竖脊肌平面阻滞作为急性肋骨骨折的镇痛干预:范围综述。
简介:肋骨骨折是胸部外伤的常见后遗症,发病率高。竖脊神经阻滞术(ESB)被认为是治疗肋骨骨折的一种替代的一线区域性技术,因为它易于操作且并发症最少。我们的目的是调查当前的文献围绕这一主题,重点是疼痛和呼吸结果。方法:在Medline、Embase、Web of Science、Scopus和Cochrane数据库中进行全面的文献检索。以“竖脊肌阻滞”和“肋骨骨折”为关键词,形成搜索策略。英文发表的研究ESB作为急性肋骨骨折镇痛干预的论文被纳入。排除标准是手术肋骨固定,或ESB的指征不是肋骨骨折。结果:37项研究符合纳入标准。其中,31项研究报告了疼痛结果,并证明在给药后24小时内疼痛评分降低了40%。8项研究报告了呼吸参数,其中激励性肺活量测定法被证实增加。呼吸道并发症的报道并不一致。ESB并发症最少;仅报告了5例血肿和感染(发生率0.6%),均无需进一步干预。讨论:目前关于ESB在肋骨骨折治疗中的文献对其疗效和安全性进行了积极的定性评价。疼痛和呼吸参数的改善几乎是普遍的。这次审查的显著结果是改进了ESB的安全性。ESB与需要干预的并发症无关,即使在抗凝和凝血功能障碍的情况下也是如此。目前仍然缺乏大型队列前瞻性数据。此外,目前没有研究表明与目前的技术相比,呼吸并发症发生率有所改善。综上所述,这些领域应该是未来研究的重点。
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
6.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
12
审稿时长
16 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:481959085
Book学术官方微信