Analgesic efficacy of two different volumes of local anaesthetics in ultrasound-guided modified approach to the thoracolumbar interfascial plane block in patients undergoing lumbar spine surgeries: a randomized controlled trial.

IF 1.6 Q2 ANESTHESIOLOGY Anaesthesiology intensive therapy Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.5114/ait.2023.134196
Bassant Abdelhamid, Eslam Ayman, Tareq Nabil, Waleed Ibrahim Hamimy, Mohamed Abd El-Monem Morsy
{"title":"Analgesic efficacy of two different volumes of local anaesthetics in ultrasound-guided modified approach to the thoracolumbar interfascial plane block in patients undergoing lumbar spine surgeries: a randomized controlled trial.","authors":"Bassant Abdelhamid, Eslam Ayman, Tareq Nabil, Waleed Ibrahim Hamimy, Mohamed Abd El-Monem Morsy","doi":"10.5114/ait.2023.134196","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>There is a lack of clarity regarding the ideal local anaesthetic volume for modified thoracolumbar interfascial plane (mTLIP) block. This study was designed to investigate the analgesic efficacy of two different volumes of bupivacaine 0.25% (20 mL, and 10 mL) for ultrasound-guided mTLIP block in patients undergoing lumbar spine surgeries.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>A total of 80 patients received single shot of bilateral mTLIP block at the mid- level of the operative intervention and were randomly allocated into one of the two groups to receive either 10 or 20 mL 0.25% bupivacaine on each side. Total morphine consumption in the first 24 hours postoperative was set as the primary outcome. Time to first rescue analgesia and Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) were set as secondary outcomes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There was no significant difference in the primary outcome: 6.20 ± 2.18 mg (10 mL Group) vs. 5 ± 0.00 mg (20 mL Group), P = 0.056. The time of first request of rescue morphine was significantly shorter in 10 mL Group (7.80 ± 3.98 hours) as compared to the 20 mL Group (13.23 ± 3.00 hours), P < 0.001. NRS at rest and movement in all time measurements was significantly higher in 10 mL Group.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Bilateral mTLIP block using 40 mL of 0.25% bupivacaine (20 mL on each side) increased the postoperative total analgesic duration for lumbar spine surgeries, and was associated with a lower postoperative pain scores compared to 20 mL of 0.25% bupivacaine (10 mL on each side).</p><p><strong>Clinical trial registration id: </strong>The study was registered at clinicaltrials.gov (ID: NCT05276908) before patient's enrolment.</p>","PeriodicalId":7750,"journal":{"name":"Anaesthesiology intensive therapy","volume":"55 5","pages":"358-365"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10801459/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anaesthesiology intensive therapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5114/ait.2023.134196","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: There is a lack of clarity regarding the ideal local anaesthetic volume for modified thoracolumbar interfascial plane (mTLIP) block. This study was designed to investigate the analgesic efficacy of two different volumes of bupivacaine 0.25% (20 mL, and 10 mL) for ultrasound-guided mTLIP block in patients undergoing lumbar spine surgeries.

Material and methods: A total of 80 patients received single shot of bilateral mTLIP block at the mid- level of the operative intervention and were randomly allocated into one of the two groups to receive either 10 or 20 mL 0.25% bupivacaine on each side. Total morphine consumption in the first 24 hours postoperative was set as the primary outcome. Time to first rescue analgesia and Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) were set as secondary outcomes.

Results: There was no significant difference in the primary outcome: 6.20 ± 2.18 mg (10 mL Group) vs. 5 ± 0.00 mg (20 mL Group), P = 0.056. The time of first request of rescue morphine was significantly shorter in 10 mL Group (7.80 ± 3.98 hours) as compared to the 20 mL Group (13.23 ± 3.00 hours), P < 0.001. NRS at rest and movement in all time measurements was significantly higher in 10 mL Group.

Conclusions: Bilateral mTLIP block using 40 mL of 0.25% bupivacaine (20 mL on each side) increased the postoperative total analgesic duration for lumbar spine surgeries, and was associated with a lower postoperative pain scores compared to 20 mL of 0.25% bupivacaine (10 mL on each side).

Clinical trial registration id: The study was registered at clinicaltrials.gov (ID: NCT05276908) before patient's enrolment.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
腰椎手术患者在超声引导下胸腰椎筋膜间平面阻滞改良方法中两种不同容量局麻药的镇痛效果:随机对照试验。
简介:目前尚不清楚改良胸腰椎筋膜间平面(mTLIP)阻滞的理想局麻药用量。本研究旨在探讨两种不同容量的 0.25% 布比卡因(20 mL 和 10 mL)在超声引导下用于腰椎手术患者 mTLIP 阻滞的镇痛效果:共有80名患者在手术介入中段接受了单次双侧mTLIP阻滞,并被随机分配到两组中的一组,每侧接受10毫升或20毫升0.25%布比卡因。术后 24 小时内的吗啡总消耗量被设定为主要结果。首次镇痛抢救时间和数值评定量表(NRS)为次要结果:主要结果无明显差异:6.20 ± 2.18 毫克(10 毫升组)对 5 ± 0.00 毫克(20 毫升组),P = 0.056。与 20 毫升组(13.23 ± 3.00 小时)相比,10 毫升组首次申请吗啡抢救的时间明显更短(7.80 ± 3.98 小时),P < 0.001。10 mL 组在静息和运动时的 NRS 均明显高于 20 mL 组:双侧 mTLIP 阻滞使用 40 mL 0.25% 布比卡因(每侧 20 mL)可增加腰椎手术的术后总镇痛时间,与 20 mL 0.25% 布比卡因(每侧 10 mL)相比,术后疼痛评分更低:该研究在患者入组前已在 clinicaltrials.gov 注册(ID:NCT05276908)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
5.90%
发文量
48
审稿时长
25 weeks
期刊最新文献
A randomised controlled trial to compare blind intubation success through LMA Blockbuster® and I-Gel® LMA. Can't intubate, can't oxygenate? What is the preferred surgical strategy? A retrospective analysis. Measures of preoperative anxiety: Part two. Navigating through the paradox of choice: prediction of outcome in aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage. Nutritional management in critically ill patients with COVID-19: a retrospective multicentre study.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1