超声引导下竖脊肌阻滞和胸神经阻滞对改良乳房切除术患者的镇痛效果:一项随机对照试验

IF 0.2 Q4 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Geeta Singariya, Himani Pahuja, M. Kamal, Kusum Choudhary, S. Meena, P. Saini
{"title":"超声引导下竖脊肌阻滞和胸神经阻滞对改良乳房切除术患者的镇痛效果:一项随机对照试验","authors":"Geeta Singariya, Himani Pahuja, M. Kamal, Kusum Choudhary, S. Meena, P. Saini","doi":"10.4103/TheIAForum.TheIAForum_74_21","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background and Aims: Modified radical mastectomy (MRM) is the commonest surgical procedure performed for carcinoma breasts. MRM is associated with considerable postoperative pain. This study was aimed to compare the analgesic efficacy of erector spinae plane (ESP) block and pectoral nerve (PECS) block. Materials and Methods: A total 70 female patients, American Society of Anesthesiologist Physical Status I-II, aged between 18 and 65 years, undergoing MRM surgery. Patients were randomly divided into two equal groups of 35 each, by computer-generated random number table. Group E patients, received ESP block with 20 mL of 0.25% levobupivacaine, and Group P patients, received PECS block with 30 mL of 0.25% of levobupivacaine. The surgical procedure was conducted under general anesthesia in both groups. The primary objective was total morphine consumption in the first 24 h and secondary objectives were intraoperative fentanyl needed, duration of analgesia, numeric rating scale (NRS) score, postoperative complications, and patient's satisfaction. The Statistical Package for the Social Science (SPSS) software version 22.0 used for statistical analysis. Results: Demographic data, hemodynamic parameters, and intraoperative fentanyl consumption were comparable between the two groups (P > 0.05). Postoperative morphine consumed in the first 24 h was less in the Group P compared to Group E (P = 0.018). The duration of analgesia was significantly prolonged in the Group P than Group E (P < 0.0001). The NRS score, postoperative complications, and patient's satisfaction were comparable. Conclusion: The PECS block is more effective analgesic modality compared to ESP blocks in patients undergoing MRM surgeries.","PeriodicalId":42359,"journal":{"name":"Indian Anaesthetists Forum","volume":"22 1","pages":"129 - 135"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Analgesic efficacy of ultrasound-guided erector spinae block and pectoral nerve block in patients undergoing modified radical mastectomy: A randomized control trial\",\"authors\":\"Geeta Singariya, Himani Pahuja, M. Kamal, Kusum Choudhary, S. Meena, P. Saini\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/TheIAForum.TheIAForum_74_21\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background and Aims: Modified radical mastectomy (MRM) is the commonest surgical procedure performed for carcinoma breasts. MRM is associated with considerable postoperative pain. This study was aimed to compare the analgesic efficacy of erector spinae plane (ESP) block and pectoral nerve (PECS) block. Materials and Methods: A total 70 female patients, American Society of Anesthesiologist Physical Status I-II, aged between 18 and 65 years, undergoing MRM surgery. Patients were randomly divided into two equal groups of 35 each, by computer-generated random number table. Group E patients, received ESP block with 20 mL of 0.25% levobupivacaine, and Group P patients, received PECS block with 30 mL of 0.25% of levobupivacaine. The surgical procedure was conducted under general anesthesia in both groups. The primary objective was total morphine consumption in the first 24 h and secondary objectives were intraoperative fentanyl needed, duration of analgesia, numeric rating scale (NRS) score, postoperative complications, and patient's satisfaction. The Statistical Package for the Social Science (SPSS) software version 22.0 used for statistical analysis. Results: Demographic data, hemodynamic parameters, and intraoperative fentanyl consumption were comparable between the two groups (P > 0.05). Postoperative morphine consumed in the first 24 h was less in the Group P compared to Group E (P = 0.018). The duration of analgesia was significantly prolonged in the Group P than Group E (P < 0.0001). The NRS score, postoperative complications, and patient's satisfaction were comparable. Conclusion: The PECS block is more effective analgesic modality compared to ESP blocks in patients undergoing MRM surgeries.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42359,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Indian Anaesthetists Forum\",\"volume\":\"22 1\",\"pages\":\"129 - 135\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Indian Anaesthetists Forum\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4103/TheIAForum.TheIAForum_74_21\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ANESTHESIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indian Anaesthetists Forum","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/TheIAForum.TheIAForum_74_21","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","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)是治疗乳腺癌最常见的手术方法。MRM与相当大的术后疼痛有关。本研究旨在比较竖脊肌平面(ESP)阻滞和胸神经(PECS)阻滞的镇痛效果。材料和方法:共有70名女性患者,美国麻醉师协会,身体状况I-II,年龄在18至65岁之间,正在接受MRM手术。通过计算机生成的随机数表,将患者随机分为两组,每组35人。E组患者接受20 mL 0.25%左旋布比卡因的ESP阻滞,P组患者接受30 mL 0.25%左旋布比卡因的PECS阻滞。两组均在全身麻醉下进行手术。主要目标是前24小时的吗啡总消耗量,次要目标是术中所需芬太尼、镇痛持续时间、数字评分量表(NRS)评分、术后并发症和患者满意度。用于统计分析的社会科学统计软件包(SPSS)软件版本22.0。结果:两组患者的人口学数据、血液动力学参数和术中芬太尼消耗量具有可比性(P>0.05)。P组术后前24小时的吗啡消耗量低于E组(P=0.018),患者满意度相当。结论:在接受MRM手术的患者中,PECS阻滞比ESP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。
Analgesic efficacy of ultrasound-guided erector spinae block and pectoral nerve block in patients undergoing modified radical mastectomy: A randomized control trial
Background and Aims: Modified radical mastectomy (MRM) is the commonest surgical procedure performed for carcinoma breasts. MRM is associated with considerable postoperative pain. This study was aimed to compare the analgesic efficacy of erector spinae plane (ESP) block and pectoral nerve (PECS) block. Materials and Methods: A total 70 female patients, American Society of Anesthesiologist Physical Status I-II, aged between 18 and 65 years, undergoing MRM surgery. Patients were randomly divided into two equal groups of 35 each, by computer-generated random number table. Group E patients, received ESP block with 20 mL of 0.25% levobupivacaine, and Group P patients, received PECS block with 30 mL of 0.25% of levobupivacaine. The surgical procedure was conducted under general anesthesia in both groups. The primary objective was total morphine consumption in the first 24 h and secondary objectives were intraoperative fentanyl needed, duration of analgesia, numeric rating scale (NRS) score, postoperative complications, and patient's satisfaction. The Statistical Package for the Social Science (SPSS) software version 22.0 used for statistical analysis. Results: Demographic data, hemodynamic parameters, and intraoperative fentanyl consumption were comparable between the two groups (P > 0.05). Postoperative morphine consumed in the first 24 h was less in the Group P compared to Group E (P = 0.018). The duration of analgesia was significantly prolonged in the Group P than Group E (P < 0.0001). The NRS score, postoperative complications, and patient's satisfaction were comparable. Conclusion: The PECS block is more effective analgesic modality compared to ESP blocks in patients undergoing MRM surgeries.
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
Indian Anaesthetists Forum
Indian Anaesthetists Forum ANESTHESIOLOGY-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
17
审稿时长
6 weeks
×
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