The efficacy of the ultrasound-guided retrolaminar block versus the classic paravertebral block in patients undergoing unilateral inguinal hernioplasty: a randomized controlled study

{"title":"The efficacy of the ultrasound-guided retrolaminar block versus the classic paravertebral block in patients undergoing unilateral inguinal hernioplasty: a randomized controlled study","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.redare.2024.03.008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>In daily surgical practice, inguinal hernioplasty<span><span> is a frequent procedure that is frequently accompanied by severe postoperative pain. Multiple regional blocks have been described for analgesia after such operations. Retrolaminar block (RLB) is a paravertebral block (PVB) variant that provides excellent analgesia and reduces the risk of complications. This prospective trial compared the </span>analgesic efficacy of PVB and RLB in the inguinal hernioplasty.</span></div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div><span>The 56 patients included were randomly assigned into two equal groups according to the block performed under ultrasound guidance at the T12 level: PVB group (28 patients) and RLB (28 patients). Time until the first rescue analgesia was our primary outcome. Other outcomes included the time to perform the block, changes in intraoperative </span>hemodynamic parameters, postoperative VAS, 24-h morphine consumption, the level of patient satisfaction, and the incidence of block-related complications.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Demographic data were comparable in the two groups. However, the time needed for the block was significantly shortened with the RLB (p &lt; 0.001). Patients in the PVB groups expressed better pain scores and lower opioid consumption. Additionally, the time to the first call for opioid analgesia showed a significant prolongation in association with the PVB. There was no discernible difference in the frequency of adverse events and recorded MAP and HR.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>The PVB has a superior perioperative analgesic profile compared to the RLB, which manifested in the prolonged duration to the first rescue analgesics, better pain scores, and less opioid consumption, with no significant increase in block-related complications.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":94196,"journal":{"name":"Revista espanola de anestesiologia y reanimacion","volume":"71 8","pages":"Pages 584-591"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista espanola de anestesiologia y reanimacion","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2341192924000611","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

In daily surgical practice, inguinal hernioplasty is a frequent procedure that is frequently accompanied by severe postoperative pain. Multiple regional blocks have been described for analgesia after such operations. Retrolaminar block (RLB) is a paravertebral block (PVB) variant that provides excellent analgesia and reduces the risk of complications. This prospective trial compared the analgesic efficacy of PVB and RLB in the inguinal hernioplasty.

Methods

The 56 patients included were randomly assigned into two equal groups according to the block performed under ultrasound guidance at the T12 level: PVB group (28 patients) and RLB (28 patients). Time until the first rescue analgesia was our primary outcome. Other outcomes included the time to perform the block, changes in intraoperative hemodynamic parameters, postoperative VAS, 24-h morphine consumption, the level of patient satisfaction, and the incidence of block-related complications.

Results

Demographic data were comparable in the two groups. However, the time needed for the block was significantly shortened with the RLB (p < 0.001). Patients in the PVB groups expressed better pain scores and lower opioid consumption. Additionally, the time to the first call for opioid analgesia showed a significant prolongation in association with the PVB. There was no discernible difference in the frequency of adverse events and recorded MAP and HR.

Conclusion

The PVB has a superior perioperative analgesic profile compared to the RLB, which manifested in the prolonged duration to the first rescue analgesics, better pain scores, and less opioid consumption, with no significant increase in block-related complications.
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
在单侧腹股沟疝成形术患者中,超声引导视网膜阻滞与传统椎旁阻滞的疗效:随机对照研究。
背景:在日常手术实践中,腹股沟疝气成形术是一种常见的手术,术后经常伴有剧烈疼痛。已有多种区域阻滞用于此类手术后的镇痛。视网膜阻滞(RLB)是椎旁阻滞(PVB)的一种变体,可提供出色的镇痛效果并降低并发症风险。这项前瞻性试验比较了 PVB 和 RLB 在腹股沟疝成形术中的镇痛效果:根据在超声引导下在 T12 水平进行的阻滞,将 56 名患者随机分为两组:PVB组(28例)和RLB组(28例)。首次镇痛前的时间是我们的主要结果。其他结果包括阻滞时间、术中血流动力学参数变化、术后VAS、24小时吗啡消耗量、患者满意度以及阻滞相关并发症的发生率:结果:两组患者的人口统计学数据相当。结果:两组患者的人口统计学数据具有可比性,但使用 RLB 时阻滞所需的时间明显缩短(P与 RLB 相比,PVB 的围手术期镇痛效果更佳,这表现在首次抢救镇痛药的持续时间更长、疼痛评分更好、阿片类药物用量更少,而阻滞相关并发症没有明显增加。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Blood recirculation during continuous renal replacement therapy due to a thrombus in the inferior vena cava. Incidence and risk factors of chronic post-thoracic surgery pain: A retrospective study. Quantitative analysis of genicular nerve block spread and variability: Anatomical correlations and clinical implications. Simultaneous cardiac perforation and left pneumothorax as complications of temporary pacemaker probe. Sonoanatomy of the difficult airway. A case-control 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