竖脊肌平面阻滞与静脉曲马多治疗急性胰腺炎疼痛的疗效:一项随机对照研究。

IF 2.3 Q3 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
V N Priyanka, Sriranga Radhakrishna Joshi, Mohammed Sajad Musliam Veetil Asif, Shinu Shincy
{"title":"竖脊肌平面阻滞与静脉曲马多治疗急性胰腺炎疼痛的疗效:一项随机对照研究。","authors":"V N Priyanka, Sriranga Radhakrishna Joshi, Mohammed Sajad Musliam Veetil Asif, Shinu Shincy","doi":"10.4103/tjem.tjem_135_25","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Efficient pain control is important for patients with acute pancreatitis who visit the emergency department (ED). In this randomized controlled trial, the efficacy of erector spinae plane (ESP) block compared to intravenous tramadol was determined to provide effective pain relief in patients with acute pancreatitis in the ED.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A single-blind randomized controlled study was conducted in the ED enrolling 18-70 years old patients with acute pancreatitis and a numerical rating scale score of > 4/10. Fifty patients were allocated to two different groups: the control group received IV tramadol (1 mg/kg every 6 h) and the ESP group received an ESP block with ropivacaine 0.375% (40 mL). Both groups received fentanyl (1 µg/kg) for rescue analgesia. Pain scores, hemodynamic parameters, and rescue analgesia were assessed. Data were analyzed using SPSS v20, utilizing <i>t</i>-tests and Chi-squared tests where appropriate.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Baseline demographics were similar between the ESP and control groups (age 41.56 ± 11.85 vs. 43.68 ± 11.55 years, <i>P</i> = 0.367). The ESP group had significantly lower pain scores up to 16 h (e.g. 1 h: 2.28 ± 1.08 vs. 6.12 ± 0.32; <i>P</i> < 0.001), reduced heart rate and mean atrial pressure at 1 h, and fewer patients requiring rescue analgesia (14% vs. 94%; <i>P</i> < 0.001) with lower analgesic consumption (66.14 ± 4.63 µg vs. 113.17 ± 33.24 µg; <i>P</i> < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>ESP block offers better pain relief and hemodynamic stability than IV tramadol in patients with acute pancreatitis, with significantly decreased opioid needs.</p>","PeriodicalId":46536,"journal":{"name":"Turkish Journal of Emergency Medicine","volume":"25 4","pages":"273-279"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12527060/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Efficacy of erector spinae plane block versus intravenous tramadol for pain management in acute pancreatitis: A randomized controlled study.\",\"authors\":\"V N Priyanka, Sriranga Radhakrishna Joshi, Mohammed Sajad Musliam Veetil Asif, Shinu Shincy\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/tjem.tjem_135_25\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Efficient pain control is important for patients with acute pancreatitis who visit the emergency department (ED). In this randomized controlled trial, the efficacy of erector spinae plane (ESP) block compared to intravenous tramadol was determined to provide effective pain relief in patients with acute pancreatitis in the ED.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A single-blind randomized controlled study was conducted in the ED enrolling 18-70 years old patients with acute pancreatitis and a numerical rating scale score of > 4/10. Fifty patients were allocated to two different groups: the control group received IV tramadol (1 mg/kg every 6 h) and the ESP group received an ESP block with ropivacaine 0.375% (40 mL). Both groups received fentanyl (1 µg/kg) for rescue analgesia. Pain scores, hemodynamic parameters, and rescue analgesia were assessed. Data were analyzed using SPSS v20, utilizing <i>t</i>-tests and Chi-squared tests where appropriate.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Baseline demographics were similar between the ESP and control groups (age 41.56 ± 11.85 vs. 43.68 ± 11.55 years, <i>P</i> = 0.367). The ESP group had significantly lower pain scores up to 16 h (e.g. 1 h: 2.28 ± 1.08 vs. 6.12 ± 0.32; <i>P</i> < 0.001), reduced heart rate and mean atrial pressure at 1 h, and fewer patients requiring rescue analgesia (14% vs. 94%; <i>P</i> < 0.001) with lower analgesic consumption (66.14 ± 4.63 µg vs. 113.17 ± 33.24 µg; <i>P</i> < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>ESP block offers better pain relief and hemodynamic stability than IV tramadol in patients with acute pancreatitis, with significantly decreased opioid needs.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46536,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Turkish Journal of Emergency Medicine\",\"volume\":\"25 4\",\"pages\":\"273-279\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12527060/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Turkish Journal of Emergency Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4103/tjem.tjem_135_25\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"EMERGENCY MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Turkish Journal of Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/tjem.tjem_135_25","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:有效的疼痛控制对急诊科(ED)的急性胰腺炎患者很重要。在这项随机对照试验中,我们确定了竖棘平面(ESP)阻滞比静脉曲马多更能有效缓解ED急性胰腺炎患者的疼痛。方法:在ED进行单盲随机对照研究,纳入18-70岁急性胰腺炎患者,数值评定量表评分为bb0 4/10。50例患者分为两组:对照组给予曲马多静脉注射(1 mg/kg / 6 h), ESP组给予罗哌卡因0.375% (40 mL)的ESP阻滞。两组均给予芬太尼(1µg/kg)抢救性镇痛。评估疼痛评分、血流动力学参数和抢救镇痛。使用SPSS v20对数据进行分析,适当时使用t检验和卡方检验。结果:ESP组与对照组的基线人口统计学相似(41.56±11.85岁vs 43.68±11.55岁,P = 0.367)。ESP组疼痛评分明显低于16小时(1小时:2.28±1.08比6.12±0.32,P < 0.001), 1小时心率和平均心房压降低,需要急救镇痛的患者较少(14%比94%,P < 0.001),镇痛消耗更低(66.14±4.63µg比113.17±33.24µg, P < 0.001)。结论:与静脉曲马多相比,ESP阻滞能更好地缓解急性胰腺炎患者的疼痛和血流动力学稳定性,并能显著降低患者对阿片类药物的需求。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Efficacy of erector spinae plane block versus intravenous tramadol for pain management in acute pancreatitis: A randomized controlled study.

Efficacy of erector spinae plane block versus intravenous tramadol for pain management in acute pancreatitis: A randomized controlled study.

Efficacy of erector spinae plane block versus intravenous tramadol for pain management in acute pancreatitis: A randomized controlled study.

Efficacy of erector spinae plane block versus intravenous tramadol for pain management in acute pancreatitis: A randomized controlled study.

Objectives: Efficient pain control is important for patients with acute pancreatitis who visit the emergency department (ED). In this randomized controlled trial, the efficacy of erector spinae plane (ESP) block compared to intravenous tramadol was determined to provide effective pain relief in patients with acute pancreatitis in the ED.

Methods: A single-blind randomized controlled study was conducted in the ED enrolling 18-70 years old patients with acute pancreatitis and a numerical rating scale score of > 4/10. Fifty patients were allocated to two different groups: the control group received IV tramadol (1 mg/kg every 6 h) and the ESP group received an ESP block with ropivacaine 0.375% (40 mL). Both groups received fentanyl (1 µg/kg) for rescue analgesia. Pain scores, hemodynamic parameters, and rescue analgesia were assessed. Data were analyzed using SPSS v20, utilizing t-tests and Chi-squared tests where appropriate.

Results: Baseline demographics were similar between the ESP and control groups (age 41.56 ± 11.85 vs. 43.68 ± 11.55 years, P = 0.367). The ESP group had significantly lower pain scores up to 16 h (e.g. 1 h: 2.28 ± 1.08 vs. 6.12 ± 0.32; P < 0.001), reduced heart rate and mean atrial pressure at 1 h, and fewer patients requiring rescue analgesia (14% vs. 94%; P < 0.001) with lower analgesic consumption (66.14 ± 4.63 µg vs. 113.17 ± 33.24 µg; P < 0.001).

Conclusion: ESP block offers better pain relief and hemodynamic stability than IV tramadol in patients with acute pancreatitis, with significantly decreased opioid needs.

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
1.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
30
审稿时长
22 weeks
期刊介绍: The Turkish Journal of Emergency Medicine (Turk J Emerg Med) is an International, peer-reviewed, open-access journal that publishes clinical and experimental trials, case reports, invited reviews, case images, letters to the Editor, and interesting research conducted in all fields of Emergency Medicine. The Journal is the official scientific publication of the Emergency Medicine Association of Turkey (EMAT) and is printed four times a year, in January, April, July and October. The language of the journal is English. The Journal is based on independent and unbiased double-blinded peer-reviewed principles. Only unpublished papers that are not under review for publication elsewhere can be submitted. The authors are responsible for the scientific content of the material to be published. The Turkish Journal of Emergency Medicine reserves the right to request any research materials on which the paper is based. The Editorial Board of the Turkish Journal of Emergency Medicine and the Publisher adheres to the principles of the International Council of Medical Journal Editors, the World Association of Medical Editors, the Council of Science Editors, the Committee on Publication Ethics, the US National Library of Medicine, the US Office of Research Integrity, the European Association of Science Editors, and the International Society of Managing and Technical Editors.
×
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