外科医生引导的透视下脊柱竖立器平面阻滞(ESPB)与麻醉师引导的超声ESPB在腰椎融合术围手术期镇痛的比较——一项前瞻性随机对照研究。

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Gnanaprakash G, Rishi Mugesh Kanna, J Balavenkat Subramanian, Sekar Chelliah, Ajoy Prasad Shetty, S Rajasekaran
{"title":"外科医生引导的透视下脊柱竖立器平面阻滞(ESPB)与麻醉师引导的超声ESPB在腰椎融合术围手术期镇痛的比较——一项前瞻性随机对照研究。","authors":"Gnanaprakash G, Rishi Mugesh Kanna, J Balavenkat Subramanian, Sekar Chelliah, Ajoy Prasad Shetty, S Rajasekaran","doi":"10.1177/21925682251333407","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Study designProspective, randomized control study.ObjectiveTo assess the safety and efficacy of fluoroscopy-guided vs ultrasound-guided Erector Spinae Plane Block (ESPB) for perioperative analgesia in lumbar fusion surgery.Materials and Methods66 patients requiring single-level lumbar fusion were randomized into 2 groups. One group had fluoroscopy-guided ESPB by the surgeon (Fluoro-ESPB group) and the other group had Ultrasound-guided ESPB by the anesthetist (USG-ESPB). Demographic details, intraoperative parameters (perioperative total opioid consumption, muscle relaxants used, heart rate, blood pressure), and postoperative parameters (VAS score, alertness, satisfaction score) were recorded and analyzed.ResultsDuring the initial 48 hours following the surgery, both groups provided good perioperative analgesia, and reported very low and comparable postoperative pain scores (VAS scale). The mean VAS score was 2.7 ± 0.5 in the Fluoro-ESPB group and 2.7 ± 0.5 in the USG-ESPB group (<i>P</i> = 0.91). The average time taken to deliver the block in the Fluoro-ESPB group (3.01 ± 0.97 mins) was significantly less than in the USG-ESPB group (4.74 ± 1.49 mins) (<i>P</i> = 0.00). The total perioperative opioid consumption (TOC), total intraoperative muscle relaxant consumption, and intraoperative blood loss were similar in both groups (Fluoro- ESPB, USG ESPB) (<i>P</i> > 0.05). The postoperative MOASS score was consistently high across both groups. The satisfaction scores were high and comparable (<i>P</i> = 0.403).ConclusionThe fluoroscopy-guided ESPB is a safe and effective alternative to the traditional ultrasound-guided technique. It can be performed by the surgeon, reducing overall procedure time, and improving workflow.</p>","PeriodicalId":12680,"journal":{"name":"Global Spine Journal","volume":" ","pages":"21925682251333407"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11955968/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Surgeon-Guided Fluoroscopic Erector Spinae Plane Block (ESPB) versus Anesthetist-Guided Ultrasonic ESPB for Perioperative Analgesia in Lumbar Fusion Surgery- a Prospective Randomized Control Study.\",\"authors\":\"Gnanaprakash G, Rishi Mugesh Kanna, J Balavenkat Subramanian, Sekar Chelliah, Ajoy Prasad Shetty, S Rajasekaran\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/21925682251333407\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Study designProspective, randomized control study.ObjectiveTo assess the safety and efficacy of fluoroscopy-guided vs ultrasound-guided Erector Spinae Plane Block (ESPB) for perioperative analgesia in lumbar fusion surgery.Materials and Methods66 patients requiring single-level lumbar fusion were randomized into 2 groups. One group had fluoroscopy-guided ESPB by the surgeon (Fluoro-ESPB group) and the other group had Ultrasound-guided ESPB by the anesthetist (USG-ESPB). Demographic details, intraoperative parameters (perioperative total opioid consumption, muscle relaxants used, heart rate, blood pressure), and postoperative parameters (VAS score, alertness, satisfaction score) were recorded and analyzed.ResultsDuring the initial 48 hours following the surgery, both groups provided good perioperative analgesia, and reported very low and comparable postoperative pain scores (VAS scale). The mean VAS score was 2.7 ± 0.5 in the Fluoro-ESPB group and 2.7 ± 0.5 in the USG-ESPB group (<i>P</i> = 0.91). The average time taken to deliver the block in the Fluoro-ESPB group (3.01 ± 0.97 mins) was significantly less than in the USG-ESPB group (4.74 ± 1.49 mins) (<i>P</i> = 0.00). The total perioperative opioid consumption (TOC), total intraoperative muscle relaxant consumption, and intraoperative blood loss were similar in both groups (Fluoro- ESPB, USG ESPB) (<i>P</i> > 0.05). The postoperative MOASS score was consistently high across both groups. The satisfaction scores were high and comparable (<i>P</i> = 0.403).ConclusionThe fluoroscopy-guided ESPB is a safe and effective alternative to the traditional ultrasound-guided technique. It can be performed by the surgeon, reducing overall procedure time, and improving workflow.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12680,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Global Spine Journal\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"21925682251333407\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11955968/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Global Spine Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/21925682251333407\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Spine Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/21925682251333407","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

研究设计前瞻性、随机对照研究。目的评价透视引导下与超声引导下直立脊柱平面阻滞(ESPB)用于腰椎融合术围手术期镇痛的安全性和有效性。材料与方法66例需要单节段腰椎融合术的患者随机分为两组。一组由外科医生进行透视引导下的ESPB (Fluoro-ESPB组),另一组由麻醉师进行超声引导下的ESPB (USG-ESPB)。记录并分析人口统计学细节、术中参数(围术期阿片类药物总用量、使用的肌肉松弛剂、心率、血压)和术后参数(VAS评分、警觉性、满意度评分)。结果术后48小时内,两组患者围术期镇痛效果良好,术后疼痛评分(VAS评分)均较低。Fluoro-ESPB组VAS评分平均为2.7±0.5,USG-ESPB组VAS评分平均为2.7±0.5 (P = 0.91)。Fluoro-ESPB组平均递送阻滞时间(3.01±0.97 min)明显少于USG-ESPB组(4.74±1.49 min) (P = 0.00)。两组围手术期阿片类药物总消耗量(TOC)、术中肌肉松弛剂总消耗量、术中出血量相似(Fluoro- ESPB、USG ESPB) (P < 0.05)。两组术后MOASS评分均较高。满意度得分较高,具有可比性(P = 0.403)。结论透视引导下的ESPB是一种安全、有效的替代传统超声引导技术的方法。它可以由外科医生执行,减少了整个手术时间,并改善了工作流程。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Surgeon-Guided Fluoroscopic Erector Spinae Plane Block (ESPB) versus Anesthetist-Guided Ultrasonic ESPB for Perioperative Analgesia in Lumbar Fusion Surgery- a Prospective Randomized Control Study.

Study designProspective, randomized control study.ObjectiveTo assess the safety and efficacy of fluoroscopy-guided vs ultrasound-guided Erector Spinae Plane Block (ESPB) for perioperative analgesia in lumbar fusion surgery.Materials and Methods66 patients requiring single-level lumbar fusion were randomized into 2 groups. One group had fluoroscopy-guided ESPB by the surgeon (Fluoro-ESPB group) and the other group had Ultrasound-guided ESPB by the anesthetist (USG-ESPB). Demographic details, intraoperative parameters (perioperative total opioid consumption, muscle relaxants used, heart rate, blood pressure), and postoperative parameters (VAS score, alertness, satisfaction score) were recorded and analyzed.ResultsDuring the initial 48 hours following the surgery, both groups provided good perioperative analgesia, and reported very low and comparable postoperative pain scores (VAS scale). The mean VAS score was 2.7 ± 0.5 in the Fluoro-ESPB group and 2.7 ± 0.5 in the USG-ESPB group (P = 0.91). The average time taken to deliver the block in the Fluoro-ESPB group (3.01 ± 0.97 mins) was significantly less than in the USG-ESPB group (4.74 ± 1.49 mins) (P = 0.00). The total perioperative opioid consumption (TOC), total intraoperative muscle relaxant consumption, and intraoperative blood loss were similar in both groups (Fluoro- ESPB, USG ESPB) (P > 0.05). The postoperative MOASS score was consistently high across both groups. The satisfaction scores were high and comparable (P = 0.403).ConclusionThe fluoroscopy-guided ESPB is a safe and effective alternative to the traditional ultrasound-guided technique. It can be performed by the surgeon, reducing overall procedure time, and improving workflow.

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
Global Spine Journal
Global Spine Journal Medicine-Surgery
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
8.30%
发文量
278
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊介绍: Global Spine Journal (GSJ) is the official scientific publication of AOSpine. A peer-reviewed, open access journal, devoted to the study and treatment of spinal disorders, including diagnosis, operative and non-operative treatment options, surgical techniques, and emerging research and clinical developments.GSJ is indexed in PubMedCentral, SCOPUS, and Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI).
×
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