Erector spinae plane block versus intercostal nerve block for postoperative analgesia in lung cancer surgery.
erector spinae plane block
intercostal nerve block
postoperative analgesia
thoracic anesthesia
video-assisted thoracic surgery
Journal
Radiology and oncology
ISSN: 1581-3207
Titre abrégé: Radiol Oncol
Pays: Poland
ID NLM: 9317213
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 09 2023
01 09 2023
Historique:
received:
11
12
2022
accepted:
16
01
2023
medline:
6
9
2023
pubmed:
4
9
2023
entrez:
4
9
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
A recent trend in postoperative analgesia for lung cancer surgery relies on regional nerve blocks with decreased opioid administration. Our study aims to critically assess the continuous ultrasound-guided A prospective randomized-control study was performed to compare outcomes of patients, scheduled for video-assisted thoracoscopic (VATS) lung cancer resection, allocated to the ESPB or ICNB group. Primary outcomes were total opioid consumption and subjective pain scores at rest and cough each hour in 48 h after surgery. The secondary outcome was respiratory muscle strength, measured by maximal inspiratory and expiratory pressures (MIP/MEP) after 24 h and 48 h. 60 patients met the inclusion criteria, half ESPB. Total opioid consumption in the first 48 h was 21. 64 ± 14.22 mg in the ESPB group and 38.34 ± 29.91 mg in the ICNB group (p = 0.035). The patients in the ESPB group had lower numerical rating scores at rest than in the ICNB group (1.19 ± 0.73 In the first 48 h after surgery, patients with continuous ESPB required fewer opioids and reported less pain than patients with ICNB. There were no differences regarding respiratory muscle strength, postoperative complications, and time to hospital discharge. In addition, continuous ESPB demanded more surveillance than ICNB.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
A recent trend in postoperative analgesia for lung cancer surgery relies on regional nerve blocks with decreased opioid administration. Our study aims to critically assess the continuous ultrasound-guided
PATIENTS AND METHODS
A prospective randomized-control study was performed to compare outcomes of patients, scheduled for video-assisted thoracoscopic (VATS) lung cancer resection, allocated to the ESPB or ICNB group. Primary outcomes were total opioid consumption and subjective pain scores at rest and cough each hour in 48 h after surgery. The secondary outcome was respiratory muscle strength, measured by maximal inspiratory and expiratory pressures (MIP/MEP) after 24 h and 48 h.
RESULTS
60 patients met the inclusion criteria, half ESPB. Total opioid consumption in the first 48 h was 21. 64 ± 14.22 mg in the ESPB group and 38.34 ± 29.91 mg in the ICNB group (p = 0.035). The patients in the ESPB group had lower numerical rating scores at rest than in the ICNB group (1.19 ± 0.73
CONCLUSIONS
In the first 48 h after surgery, patients with continuous ESPB required fewer opioids and reported less pain than patients with ICNB. There were no differences regarding respiratory muscle strength, postoperative complications, and time to hospital discharge. In addition, continuous ESPB demanded more surveillance than ICNB.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37665743
pii: raon-2023-0035
doi: 10.2478/raon-2023-0035
pmc: PMC10476902
doi:
Substances chimiques
Analgesics, Opioid
0
Types de publication
Randomized Controlled Trial
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
364-370Informations de copyright
© 2023 Polona Gams et al., published by Sciendo.
Références
Lancet Oncol. 2016 Jun;17(6):836-844
pubmed: 27160473
Saudi J Anaesth. 2017 Jan-Mar;11(1):54-57
pubmed: 28217054
Ann Thorac Surg. 2021 Oct;112(4):e245-e247
pubmed: 33549523
Tumori. 2023 Feb;109(1):6-18
pubmed: 35361015
Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2019 Mar;44(3):285-286
pubmed: 30636717
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2001 Oct;20(4):688-93
pubmed: 11574209
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2019 Jan 1;55(1):91-115
pubmed: 30304509
Anesthesiology. 2021 Feb 1;134(2):283-344
pubmed: 33372949
Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2012 May-Jun;37(3):310-7
pubmed: 22531384
J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2020 Feb;34(2):444-449
pubmed: 31122843
Radiol Oncol. 2013 May 21;47(2):145-53
pubmed: 23801911
Eur Respir J. 2019 Jun 13;53(6):
pubmed: 30956204
Can Respir J. 2014 Jan-Feb;21(1):43-50
pubmed: 24137574
J Anesth. 2021 Feb;35(1):102-111
pubmed: 33340344
Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2021 Feb 24;7(1):56
pubmed: 33627193
J Clin Anesth. 2019 Mar;53:29-34
pubmed: 30292068
Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2018 Oct;43(7):756-762
pubmed: 29794943
Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2001 Dec;2(12):2051-63
pubmed: 11825334
JAMA Netw Open. 2021 Nov 1;4(11):e2133394
pubmed: 34779845
J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2021 Aug;35(8):2297-2302
pubmed: 33039288
Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2018 Aug;43(6):567-571
pubmed: 29746445
Pain Physician. 2008 Mar;11(2 Suppl):S105-20
pubmed: 18443635
J Clin Anesth. 2016 Dec;35:123-128
pubmed: 27871508
BMC Surg. 2021 Jul 14;21(1):311
pubmed: 34261455
Anesth Analg. 2008 Sep;107(3):1026-40
pubmed: 18713924
J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2021 Oct;35(10):2920-2927
pubmed: 33358107
Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2016 Sep-Oct;41(5):621-7
pubmed: 27501016
J Thorac Dis. 2015 Feb;7(Suppl 1):S62-72
pubmed: 25774311
J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2020 Sep;34(9):2421-2429
pubmed: 32144056
J Clin Anesth. 2020 Feb;59:106-111
pubmed: 31330457
Radiol Oncol. 2015 Nov 27;49(4):386-94
pubmed: 26834526
J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2022 May;36(5):1387-1395
pubmed: 34301447
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2021 May;161(5):1689-1701
pubmed: 32386754
Respir Care. 2009 Oct;54(10):1348-59
pubmed: 19796415