改良根治性乳房切除术患者术后镇痛中点横突至胸膜(MTP)阻滞与竖脊平面阻滞(ESP)的比较:双盲随机对照试验。

IF 1.5 Q3 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Priyanka Sethi, Manbir Kaur, Pradeep K Bhatia, Shilpa Goyal, Ankur Sharma, Shipra Roy, Narender Kaloria
{"title":"改良根治性乳房切除术患者术后镇痛中点横突至胸膜(MTP)阻滞与竖脊平面阻滞(ESP)的比较:双盲随机对照试验。","authors":"Priyanka Sethi, Manbir Kaur, Pradeep K Bhatia, Shilpa Goyal, Ankur Sharma, Shipra Roy, Narender Kaloria","doi":"10.4103/joacp.joacp_429_22","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and aims: </strong>Modified radical mastectomy (MRM) is associated with moderate severity of postoperative pain. Besides intravenous (IV) analgesics, various nerve blocks are being described for pain relief of MRM patients. We compared erector spinae plane (ESP) block with midpoint transverse process to pleura (MTP) block in these patients for postoperative analgesia.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>After receiving ethical committee approval from the institutional ethics committee (AIIMS, Jodhpur) and written informed consent from study participants, 66 patients who were assigned American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I and II, aged 18-75 years, and were scheduled to undergo MRM were enrolled and randomly allocated into two groups. Unilateral block was given before surgery at T3 or T4 level and with 15 ml of 0.5% ropivacaine in both the groups. Infusion of 0.5% ropivacaine (Neon laboratories limited, Mumbai, India) and 0.2% ropivacaine at a rate of 5 ml/h was maintained intraoperatively and postoperatively, respectively. Pain was assessed using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for the next 24 hours. The total number of patients needing rescue analgesia, the total amount of rescue analgesics consumed in the next 24 hours, and patient satisfaction score were also compared between groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Demographics and baseline vitals were comparable in the groups. On comparing VAS scores in both the groups during rest and movement at different time intervals, there was no difference in pain scores during the initial two hours. From the third hour, there was a statistically significant difference (<i>P</i> < 0.001) in pain VAS scores in both groups. The ESP group had lower VAS scores compared to the MTP group when followed for the next 24 hours. There was a statistically significant difference in patient satisfaction.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>ESP block is more efficacious when compared to MTP block for postoperative analgesia in MRM patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":14946,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Anaesthesiology, Clinical Pharmacology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11196050/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of midpoint transverse process to pleura (MTP) block and erector spinae plane block (ESP) for postoperative analgesia in modified radical mastectomy patients: A double-blinded, randomized control trial.\",\"authors\":\"Priyanka Sethi, Manbir Kaur, Pradeep K Bhatia, Shilpa Goyal, Ankur Sharma, Shipra Roy, Narender Kaloria\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/joacp.joacp_429_22\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background and aims: </strong>Modified radical mastectomy (MRM) is associated with moderate severity of postoperative pain. Besides intravenous (IV) analgesics, various nerve blocks are being described for pain relief of MRM patients. We compared erector spinae plane (ESP) block with midpoint transverse process to pleura (MTP) block in these patients for postoperative analgesia.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>After receiving ethical committee approval from the institutional ethics committee (AIIMS, Jodhpur) and written informed consent from study participants, 66 patients who were assigned American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I and II, aged 18-75 years, and were scheduled to undergo MRM were enrolled and randomly allocated into two groups. Unilateral block was given before surgery at T3 or T4 level and with 15 ml of 0.5% ropivacaine in both the groups. Infusion of 0.5% ropivacaine (Neon laboratories limited, Mumbai, India) and 0.2% ropivacaine at a rate of 5 ml/h was maintained intraoperatively and postoperatively, respectively. Pain was assessed using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for the next 24 hours. The total number of patients needing rescue analgesia, the total amount of rescue analgesics consumed in the next 24 hours, and patient satisfaction score were also compared between groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Demographics and baseline vitals were comparable in the groups. On comparing VAS scores in both the groups during rest and movement at different time intervals, there was no difference in pain scores during the initial two hours. From the third hour, there was a statistically significant difference (<i>P</i> < 0.001) in pain VAS scores in both groups. The ESP group had lower VAS scores compared to the MTP group when followed for the next 24 hours. There was a statistically significant difference in patient satisfaction.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>ESP block is more efficacious when compared to MTP block for postoperative analgesia in MRM patients.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14946,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Anaesthesiology, Clinical Pharmacology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11196050/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Anaesthesiology, Clinical Pharmacology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4103/joacp.joacp_429_22\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/5/16 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Anaesthesiology, Clinical Pharmacology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/joacp.joacp_429_22","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/16 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景和目的:改良根治性乳房切除术(MRM)会导致中等程度的术后疼痛。除了静脉注射(IV)镇痛药外,还有各种神经阻滞疗法用于缓解 MRM 患者的疼痛。我们比较了竖脊面(ESP)阻滞和胸膜横突中点(MTP)阻滞对这些患者术后镇痛的效果:在获得机构伦理委员会(AIIMS,焦特普尔)的批准和研究参与者的书面知情同意后,66 名美国麻醉医师协会(ASA)身体状况为 I 级和 II 级、年龄在 18-75 岁之间、计划接受 MRM 的患者被纳入研究,并随机分配到两组。两组患者均在手术前于 T3 或 T4 水平进行单侧阻滞,使用 15 毫升 0.5% 罗哌卡因。术中和术后分别以 5 毫升/小时的速度输注 0.5% 罗哌卡因(印度孟买 Neon Laboratories 有限公司)和 0.2% 罗哌卡因。在接下来的 24 小时内,使用视觉模拟量表(VAS)对疼痛进行评估。此外,还比较了两组患者需要镇痛抢救的总人数、接下来 24 小时内镇痛抢救的总用量以及患者满意度评分:结果:两组患者的人口统计学和基线生命体征相当。比较两组患者在休息和运动时不同时间间隔的 VAS 评分,最初两小时的疼痛评分没有差异。从第三小时开始,两组的疼痛 VAS 评分有显著的统计学差异(P < 0.001)。在接下来的 24 小时内,ESP 组的 VAS 评分低于 MTP 组。结论:ESP阻滞与MTP阻滞相比更有效:结论:在 MRM 患者的术后镇痛中,ESP 阻滞比 MTP 阻滞更有效。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison of midpoint transverse process to pleura (MTP) block and erector spinae plane block (ESP) for postoperative analgesia in modified radical mastectomy patients: A double-blinded, randomized control trial.

Background and aims: Modified radical mastectomy (MRM) is associated with moderate severity of postoperative pain. Besides intravenous (IV) analgesics, various nerve blocks are being described for pain relief of MRM patients. We compared erector spinae plane (ESP) block with midpoint transverse process to pleura (MTP) block in these patients for postoperative analgesia.

Material and methods: After receiving ethical committee approval from the institutional ethics committee (AIIMS, Jodhpur) and written informed consent from study participants, 66 patients who were assigned American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I and II, aged 18-75 years, and were scheduled to undergo MRM were enrolled and randomly allocated into two groups. Unilateral block was given before surgery at T3 or T4 level and with 15 ml of 0.5% ropivacaine in both the groups. Infusion of 0.5% ropivacaine (Neon laboratories limited, Mumbai, India) and 0.2% ropivacaine at a rate of 5 ml/h was maintained intraoperatively and postoperatively, respectively. Pain was assessed using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for the next 24 hours. The total number of patients needing rescue analgesia, the total amount of rescue analgesics consumed in the next 24 hours, and patient satisfaction score were also compared between groups.

Results: Demographics and baseline vitals were comparable in the groups. On comparing VAS scores in both the groups during rest and movement at different time intervals, there was no difference in pain scores during the initial two hours. From the third hour, there was a statistically significant difference (P < 0.001) in pain VAS scores in both groups. The ESP group had lower VAS scores compared to the MTP group when followed for the next 24 hours. There was a statistically significant difference in patient satisfaction.

Conclusion: ESP block is more efficacious when compared to MTP block for postoperative analgesia in MRM patients.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
6.70%
发文量
129
期刊介绍: The JOACP publishes original peer-reviewed research and clinical work in all branches of anaesthesiology, pain, critical care and perioperative medicine including the application to basic sciences. In addition, the journal publishes review articles, special articles, brief communications/reports, case reports, and reports of new equipment, letters to editor, book reviews and obituaries. It is international in scope and comprehensive in coverage.
×
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