Effect of sacral erector spinae plane block on post-hemorrhoidectomy pain: A randomized controlled trial.
Journal
Medicine
ISSN: 1536-5964
Titre abrégé: Medicine (Baltimore)
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 2985248R
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
15 Sep 2023
15 Sep 2023
Historique:
medline:
18
9
2023
pubmed:
16
9
2023
entrez:
15
9
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Hemorrhoidectomy is a common surgical procedure associated with significant postoperative pain. The conventional analgesic methods used for hemorrhoidectomy often have adverse effects and may not provide adequate pain relief. The sacral erector spinae plane block (ESPB) is a newly introduced technique that has shown promise in various surgical procedures. This prospective, randomized, controlled trial aimed to evaluate the analgesic effects of sacral ESPB following hemorrhoidectomy. Seventy patients undergoing hemorrhoidectomy were divided into 2 groups: the control group and the sacral ESPB group. Bilateral sacral ESPB was performed in the sacral ESPB group, whereas no intervention was performed in the control group. The numeric rating scale at rest and during the active period (mobilizing) was used as the primary outcome measure. Secondary outcome measures were the cumulative doses of tramadol, the number of patients who required rescue analgesia postoperatively, and quality of recovery-15 Turkish version patient recovery quality. The sacral ESPB group had significantly low numeric rating scale scores at various time points (P < .05). More patients in the control group needed rescue analgesia during the postoperative period (P < .001). The dosages of tramadol consumption after the first 24 hours postoperatively were significantly lower in the sacral ESPB group compared with the control group (P < .001). Furthermore, quality of recovery-15 Turkish version scores were high in the sacral ESPB group (P < .001). The results suggest that sacral ESPB is an effective method for post-hemorrhoidectomy pain management, reducing the need for additional analgesics and improving patient recovery.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Hemorrhoidectomy is a common surgical procedure associated with significant postoperative pain. The conventional analgesic methods used for hemorrhoidectomy often have adverse effects and may not provide adequate pain relief. The sacral erector spinae plane block (ESPB) is a newly introduced technique that has shown promise in various surgical procedures. This prospective, randomized, controlled trial aimed to evaluate the analgesic effects of sacral ESPB following hemorrhoidectomy.
METHODS
METHODS
Seventy patients undergoing hemorrhoidectomy were divided into 2 groups: the control group and the sacral ESPB group. Bilateral sacral ESPB was performed in the sacral ESPB group, whereas no intervention was performed in the control group. The numeric rating scale at rest and during the active period (mobilizing) was used as the primary outcome measure. Secondary outcome measures were the cumulative doses of tramadol, the number of patients who required rescue analgesia postoperatively, and quality of recovery-15 Turkish version patient recovery quality.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The sacral ESPB group had significantly low numeric rating scale scores at various time points (P < .05). More patients in the control group needed rescue analgesia during the postoperative period (P < .001). The dosages of tramadol consumption after the first 24 hours postoperatively were significantly lower in the sacral ESPB group compared with the control group (P < .001). Furthermore, quality of recovery-15 Turkish version scores were high in the sacral ESPB group (P < .001).
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
The results suggest that sacral ESPB is an effective method for post-hemorrhoidectomy pain management, reducing the need for additional analgesics and improving patient recovery.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37713873
doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000035168
pii: 00005792-202309150-00061
pmc: PMC10508424
doi:
Substances chimiques
Tramadol
39J1LGJ30J
Types de publication
Randomized Controlled Trial
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e35168Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have no funding and conflicts of interest to disclose.
Références
Clin Nutr. 2012 Dec;31(6):801-16
pubmed: 23062720
Cureus. 2020 Apr 14;12(4):e7665
pubmed: 32419993
Anesthesiology. 2013 Apr;118(4):934-44
pubmed: 23392233
Pain Physician. 2008 Mar;11(2 Suppl):S105-20
pubmed: 18443635
Med Toxicol Adverse Drug Exp. 1987 Sep-Oct;2(5):338-66
pubmed: 3312930
Br J Anaesth. 2016 Feb;116(2):241-8
pubmed: 26787793
Tech Coloproctol. 2020 Feb;24(2):165-171
pubmed: 31919601
J Clin Anesth. 2019 Nov;57:129-130
pubmed: 30999197
Anesth Essays Res. 2018 Jan-Mar;12(1):36-41
pubmed: 29628551
Int J Surg Case Rep. 2017;30:73-75
pubmed: 27960130
Minerva Anestesiol. 2017 Sep;83(9):930-938
pubmed: 28256813
Br J Surg. 2015 Dec;102(13):1603-18
pubmed: 26420725
Br J Anaesth. 2020 Nov;125(5):802-810
pubmed: 32660716
Korean J Pain. 2012 Apr;25(2):89-93
pubmed: 22514775
Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1992 Jul;52(1):90-5
pubmed: 1623695
Turk J Med Sci. 2022 Apr;52(2):427-435
pubmed: 36161615
World J Surg. 2016 Jan;40(1):215-24
pubmed: 26578318
Minerva Anestesiol. 2019 Mar;85(3):308-319
pubmed: 30621377
J Clin Anesth. 2020 Feb;59:11-12
pubmed: 31176955
Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2016 Sep-Oct;41(5):621-7
pubmed: 27501016
J Clin Anesth. 2020 Mar;60:83-84
pubmed: 31476627
Emerg Med Clin North Am. 1995 May;13(2):357-79
pubmed: 7737025
Anesth Analg. 1999 Mar;88(3):599-604
pubmed: 10072014
Sao Paulo Med J. 2017 May-Jun;135(3):247-252
pubmed: 28562733
J Clin Anesth. 2021 Feb;68:110060
pubmed: 33010490
Br J Surg. 2008 May;95(5):555-63
pubmed: 18389499
Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2021 Mar 01;38(Suppl 1):S1-S8
pubmed: 33074940
J Med Assoc Thai. 2008 Dec;91(12):1862-6
pubmed: 19133521
Br J Anaesth. 2002 Feb;88(2):234-40
pubmed: 11883387
J Clin Anesth. 2020 Feb;59:38-39
pubmed: 31203111