VATS的单次注射与多次注射横突间阻滞:一项皮肤感觉阻滞的随机试验。

IF 2.5 3区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Journal of Pain Research Pub Date : 2025-09-15 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.2147/JPR.S545731
Kittitorn Supphapipat, Artid Samerchua, Prangmalee Leurcharusmee, Panuwat Lapisatepun, Tanyong Pipanmekaporn, Nichagoon Konkarn, Kullaphun Prapussarakul, Thidarut Jinadech, Mullika Wanvoharn
{"title":"VATS的单次注射与多次注射横突间阻滞:一项皮肤感觉阻滞的随机试验。","authors":"Kittitorn Supphapipat, Artid Samerchua, Prangmalee Leurcharusmee, Panuwat Lapisatepun, Tanyong Pipanmekaporn, Nichagoon Konkarn, Kullaphun Prapussarakul, Thidarut Jinadech, Mullika Wanvoharn","doi":"10.2147/JPR.S545731","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>While the intertransverse process (ITP) block can enhance chest wall analgesia, the optimal injection technique remains unclear. This study compared the efficacy of single versus multiple injections of the ITP block, hypothesizing that multiple injections would provide superior sensory blockade.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>Forty patients undergoing video-assisted thoracic surgery were randomized to receive single or multiple ultrasound-guided ITP block injections with 30 mL of 0.25% bupivacaine and 1% lidocaine with epinephrine (5 μg/mL). The single-injection group received 30 mL at the T4-5 level, while the multiple-injection group received 10 mL/injection at the T3-4, T4-5, and T5-6 levels. The primary outcome was dermatomal sensory changes on the anterolateral chest wall. Secondary outcomes included block performance time, complications, and postoperative analgesia.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The median (interquartile range [IQR]) dermatomal sensory levels were 2 (2-4) for single-injection and 3 (1.5-3.5) for multiple-injection (median difference: 0, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -1 to 1, <i>p</i> = 0.91). The single-injection group had a shorter median (IQR) block performance time than the multiple-injection group [7 (5.2-8.4) min versus 9.1 (7.8-11.2) min; median difference: -1.9 min; 95% CI: -4 to -0.1 min; <i>p</i> = 0.01]. Intraoperative hypotension occurred in 63.2% of the single-injection group and 65% of the multiple-injection group (<i>p</i> = 0.91). There was no statistically significant difference in postoperative pain intensity between groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Single- and multiple-injection ITP blocks showed no significant difference in sensory changes or analgesic effect. The shorter performance time of the single-injection technique suggests it may be a more practical option. However, larger, higher powered studies are required to confirm equivalence and establish definitive recommendations.</p>","PeriodicalId":16661,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pain Research","volume":"18 ","pages":"4791-4800"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12448092/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Single- versus Multiple-Injection Intertransverse Process Block for VATS: A Randomized Trial on Dermatomal Sensory Blockade.\",\"authors\":\"Kittitorn Supphapipat, Artid Samerchua, Prangmalee Leurcharusmee, Panuwat Lapisatepun, Tanyong Pipanmekaporn, Nichagoon Konkarn, Kullaphun Prapussarakul, Thidarut Jinadech, Mullika Wanvoharn\",\"doi\":\"10.2147/JPR.S545731\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>While the intertransverse process (ITP) block can enhance chest wall analgesia, the optimal injection technique remains unclear. This study compared the efficacy of single versus multiple injections of the ITP block, hypothesizing that multiple injections would provide superior sensory blockade.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>Forty patients undergoing video-assisted thoracic surgery were randomized to receive single or multiple ultrasound-guided ITP block injections with 30 mL of 0.25% bupivacaine and 1% lidocaine with epinephrine (5 μg/mL). The single-injection group received 30 mL at the T4-5 level, while the multiple-injection group received 10 mL/injection at the T3-4, T4-5, and T5-6 levels. The primary outcome was dermatomal sensory changes on the anterolateral chest wall. Secondary outcomes included block performance time, complications, and postoperative analgesia.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The median (interquartile range [IQR]) dermatomal sensory levels were 2 (2-4) for single-injection and 3 (1.5-3.5) for multiple-injection (median difference: 0, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -1 to 1, <i>p</i> = 0.91). The single-injection group had a shorter median (IQR) block performance time than the multiple-injection group [7 (5.2-8.4) min versus 9.1 (7.8-11.2) min; median difference: -1.9 min; 95% CI: -4 to -0.1 min; <i>p</i> = 0.01]. Intraoperative hypotension occurred in 63.2% of the single-injection group and 65% of the multiple-injection group (<i>p</i> = 0.91). There was no statistically significant difference in postoperative pain intensity between groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Single- and multiple-injection ITP blocks showed no significant difference in sensory changes or analgesic effect. The shorter performance time of the single-injection technique suggests it may be a more practical option. However, larger, higher powered studies are required to confirm equivalence and establish definitive recommendations.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16661,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Pain Research\",\"volume\":\"18 \",\"pages\":\"4791-4800\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12448092/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Pain Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2147/JPR.S545731\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Pain Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/JPR.S545731","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:虽然横突间阻滞(ITP)可以增强胸壁镇痛,但最佳注射技术尚不清楚。本研究比较了单次注射与多次注射ITP阻滞的疗效,假设多次注射会提供更好的感觉阻滞。患者与方法:选取40例胸腔镜手术患者,随机分为单次或多次超声引导下ITP阻断注射,分别注射0.25%布比卡因和1%利多卡因加肾上腺素(5 μg/mL) 30 mL。单次注射组在T3-4、T4-5、T5-6水平注射30 mL,多次注射组在T3-4、T4-5、T5-6水平注射10 mL/支。主要结果是胸壁前外侧的皮肤感觉改变。次要结果包括阻滞时间、并发症和术后镇痛。结果:单次注射组皮肤感觉水平中位数(四分位间距[IQR])为2(2-4),多次注射组为3(1.5-3.5)(中位数差异:0,95%置信区间[CI]: -1至1,p = 0.91)。单次注射组的中位阻滞时间(IQR)短于多次注射组[7 (5.2-8.4)min vs 9.1 (7.8-11.2) min;中位差值:-1.9 min;95% CI: -4 ~ -0.1 min;P = 0.01]。单次注射组术中低血压发生率为63.2%,多次注射组为65% (p = 0.91)。两组患者术后疼痛强度差异无统计学意义。结论:单次和多次注射ITP阻滞在感觉改变和镇痛效果上无显著差异。单次注入技术的性能时间较短,这表明它可能是一种更实用的选择。然而,需要更大规模、更有力的研究来确认等效性并建立明确的建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Single- versus Multiple-Injection Intertransverse Process Block for VATS: A Randomized Trial on Dermatomal Sensory Blockade.

Single- versus Multiple-Injection Intertransverse Process Block for VATS: A Randomized Trial on Dermatomal Sensory Blockade.

Single- versus Multiple-Injection Intertransverse Process Block for VATS: A Randomized Trial on Dermatomal Sensory Blockade.

Single- versus Multiple-Injection Intertransverse Process Block for VATS: A Randomized Trial on Dermatomal Sensory Blockade.

Purpose: While the intertransverse process (ITP) block can enhance chest wall analgesia, the optimal injection technique remains unclear. This study compared the efficacy of single versus multiple injections of the ITP block, hypothesizing that multiple injections would provide superior sensory blockade.

Patients and methods: Forty patients undergoing video-assisted thoracic surgery were randomized to receive single or multiple ultrasound-guided ITP block injections with 30 mL of 0.25% bupivacaine and 1% lidocaine with epinephrine (5 μg/mL). The single-injection group received 30 mL at the T4-5 level, while the multiple-injection group received 10 mL/injection at the T3-4, T4-5, and T5-6 levels. The primary outcome was dermatomal sensory changes on the anterolateral chest wall. Secondary outcomes included block performance time, complications, and postoperative analgesia.

Results: The median (interquartile range [IQR]) dermatomal sensory levels were 2 (2-4) for single-injection and 3 (1.5-3.5) for multiple-injection (median difference: 0, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -1 to 1, p = 0.91). The single-injection group had a shorter median (IQR) block performance time than the multiple-injection group [7 (5.2-8.4) min versus 9.1 (7.8-11.2) min; median difference: -1.9 min; 95% CI: -4 to -0.1 min; p = 0.01]. Intraoperative hypotension occurred in 63.2% of the single-injection group and 65% of the multiple-injection group (p = 0.91). There was no statistically significant difference in postoperative pain intensity between groups.

Conclusion: Single- and multiple-injection ITP blocks showed no significant difference in sensory changes or analgesic effect. The shorter performance time of the single-injection technique suggests it may be a more practical option. However, larger, higher powered studies are required to confirm equivalence and establish definitive recommendations.

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
Journal of Pain Research
Journal of Pain Research CLINICAL NEUROLOGY-
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
3.70%
发文量
411
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Pain Research is an international, peer-reviewed, open access journal that welcomes laboratory and clinical findings in the fields of pain research and the prevention and management of pain. Original research, reviews, symposium reports, hypothesis formation and commentaries are all considered for publication. Additionally, the journal now welcomes the submission of pain-policy-related editorials and commentaries, particularly in regard to ethical, regulatory, forensic, and other legal issues in pain medicine, and to the education of pain practitioners and researchers.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信