腰椎融合术中直立棘平面阻滞和硬膜外阻滞术后镇痛的相对疗效比较——一项前瞻性随机对照研究。

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Global Spine Journal Pub Date : 2025-03-01 Epub Date: 2023-09-22 DOI:10.1177/21925682231203653
Yogin Patel, Karthik Ramachandran, Ajoy Prasad Shetty, Sekar Chelliah, Balavenkat Subramanian, Rishi Mugesh Kanna, Rajasekaran Shanmuganathan
{"title":"腰椎融合术中直立棘平面阻滞和硬膜外阻滞术后镇痛的相对疗效比较——一项前瞻性随机对照研究。","authors":"Yogin Patel, Karthik Ramachandran, Ajoy Prasad Shetty, Sekar Chelliah, Balavenkat Subramanian, Rishi Mugesh Kanna, Rajasekaran Shanmuganathan","doi":"10.1177/21925682231203653","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Study design: </strong>Prospective, randomized controlled double-blinded study.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the relative efficacy of ultrasound-guided ESPB and CEB for postoperative analgesia after a single-level lumbar fusion surgery and compared it with conventional multimodal analgesia.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>81 patients requiring single-level lumbar fusion surgery were randomly allocated into 3 groups (ESPB group, CEB group, and the control group). Demographic and surgical data (blood loss, duration of surgery, perioperative total opioid consumption, muscle relaxants used) were assessed. Postoperatively, the surgical site pain, alertness scale, satisfaction score, time to mobilization, and complications were recorded.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The total opioid consumption in the first 24 hours was significantly lower in both the block groups than in the control group (103.70 ± 13.34 vs 105 ± 16.01 vs 142.59 ± 40.91mcg; <i>P</i> < .001). The total muscle relaxant consumption was also significantly less in block groups compared to controls (50.93 ± 1.98 vs 52.04 ± 3.47 vs 55.00 ± 5.29 mg; <i>P</i> < .001). The intraoperative blood loss was significantly less in both the block group (327.78 ± 40.03 mL, 380.74 ± 77.80 mL) than the control group (498.89 ± 71.22 mL) (<i>P</i> < .001). Among the block groups, the immediate postoperative pain relief was better in the CEB group, however, the ESPB group had a longer duration of postoperative pain relief.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Both ESPB and CEB produce adequate postoperative analgesia after lumbar fusion however the duration of action was significantly longer in the ESPB group with relatively shorter surgical time and lesser blood loss compared to the CEB group.</p>","PeriodicalId":12680,"journal":{"name":"Global Spine Journal","volume":" ","pages":"639-647"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11877558/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison Between Relative Efficacy of Erector Spinae Plane Block and Caudal Epidural Block for Postoperative Analgesia in Lumbar Fusion Surgery- A Prospective Randomized Controlled Study.\",\"authors\":\"Yogin Patel, Karthik Ramachandran, Ajoy Prasad Shetty, Sekar Chelliah, Balavenkat Subramanian, Rishi Mugesh Kanna, Rajasekaran Shanmuganathan\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/21925682231203653\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Study design: </strong>Prospective, randomized controlled double-blinded study.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the relative efficacy of ultrasound-guided ESPB and CEB for postoperative analgesia after a single-level lumbar fusion surgery and compared it with conventional multimodal analgesia.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>81 patients requiring single-level lumbar fusion surgery were randomly allocated into 3 groups (ESPB group, CEB group, and the control group). Demographic and surgical data (blood loss, duration of surgery, perioperative total opioid consumption, muscle relaxants used) were assessed. Postoperatively, the surgical site pain, alertness scale, satisfaction score, time to mobilization, and complications were recorded.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The total opioid consumption in the first 24 hours was significantly lower in both the block groups than in the control group (103.70 ± 13.34 vs 105 ± 16.01 vs 142.59 ± 40.91mcg; <i>P</i> < .001). The total muscle relaxant consumption was also significantly less in block groups compared to controls (50.93 ± 1.98 vs 52.04 ± 3.47 vs 55.00 ± 5.29 mg; <i>P</i> < .001). The intraoperative blood loss was significantly less in both the block group (327.78 ± 40.03 mL, 380.74 ± 77.80 mL) than the control group (498.89 ± 71.22 mL) (<i>P</i> < .001). Among the block groups, the immediate postoperative pain relief was better in the CEB group, however, the ESPB group had a longer duration of postoperative pain relief.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Both ESPB and CEB produce adequate postoperative analgesia after lumbar fusion however the duration of action was significantly longer in the ESPB group with relatively shorter surgical time and lesser blood loss compared to the CEB group.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12680,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Global Spine Journal\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"639-647\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11877558/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Global Spine Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/21925682231203653\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/9/22 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Spine Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/21925682231203653","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/9/22 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

研究设计:前瞻性、随机对照双盲研究。目的:比较超声引导下ESPB和CEB用于单节段腰椎融合术后术后镇痛的相对疗效,并与传统多模式镇痛进行比较。方法:将81例需要单级腰椎融合术的患者随机分为3组(ESPB组、CEB组和对照组)。评估人口统计学和手术数据(失血量、手术持续时间、围手术期阿片类药物总消耗量、使用的肌肉松弛剂)。术后,记录手术部位疼痛、警觉性量表、满意度评分、动员时间和并发症。结果:两个阻断组在前24小时内的阿片类药物总消耗量均显著低于对照组(103.70±13.34 vs 105±16.01 vs 142.59±40.91mcg;P<.001)。与对照组相比,阻断组的肌肉松弛剂总消耗量也显著减少(50.93±1.98 vs 52.04±3.47 vs 55.00±5.29mg;P<.001)阻滞组(327.78±40.03 mL,380.74±77.80 mL)明显少于对照组(498.89±71.22 mL)(P<0.001)。在阻滞组中,CEB组的术后即刻疼痛缓解效果更好,但ESPB组术后疼痛缓解持续时间更长。结论:ESPB和CEB在腰椎融合术后都能产生足够的术后镇痛,但与CEB组相比,ESPB组的作用时间明显更长,手术时间相对更短,出血量更少。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison Between Relative Efficacy of Erector Spinae Plane Block and Caudal Epidural Block for Postoperative Analgesia in Lumbar Fusion Surgery- A Prospective Randomized Controlled Study.

Study design: Prospective, randomized controlled double-blinded study.

Objective: To compare the relative efficacy of ultrasound-guided ESPB and CEB for postoperative analgesia after a single-level lumbar fusion surgery and compared it with conventional multimodal analgesia.

Methods: 81 patients requiring single-level lumbar fusion surgery were randomly allocated into 3 groups (ESPB group, CEB group, and the control group). Demographic and surgical data (blood loss, duration of surgery, perioperative total opioid consumption, muscle relaxants used) were assessed. Postoperatively, the surgical site pain, alertness scale, satisfaction score, time to mobilization, and complications were recorded.

Results: The total opioid consumption in the first 24 hours was significantly lower in both the block groups than in the control group (103.70 ± 13.34 vs 105 ± 16.01 vs 142.59 ± 40.91mcg; P < .001). The total muscle relaxant consumption was also significantly less in block groups compared to controls (50.93 ± 1.98 vs 52.04 ± 3.47 vs 55.00 ± 5.29 mg; P < .001). The intraoperative blood loss was significantly less in both the block group (327.78 ± 40.03 mL, 380.74 ± 77.80 mL) than the control group (498.89 ± 71.22 mL) (P < .001). Among the block groups, the immediate postoperative pain relief was better in the CEB group, however, the ESPB group had a longer duration of postoperative pain relief.

Conclusion: Both ESPB and CEB produce adequate postoperative analgesia after lumbar fusion however the duration of action was significantly longer in the ESPB group with relatively shorter surgical time and lesser blood loss compared to the CEB group.

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