Comparison of Thoracic Paravertebral Block and Ultrasound-guided Erector Spinae Plane Block for Postoperative Analgesia after Video-Assisted Thoracic Surgery: A Retrospective Study

Huizhen He, Siqi Zhang, Zhihui Wei
{"title":"Comparison of Thoracic Paravertebral Block and Ultrasound-guided Erector Spinae Plane Block for Postoperative Analgesia after Video-Assisted Thoracic Surgery: A Retrospective Study","authors":"Huizhen He, Siqi Zhang, Zhihui Wei","doi":"10.59958/hsf.7087","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: This study aimed to compare the value of thoracic paravertebral block and ultrasound-guided erector spinal muscle plane block in video-assisted analgesia after thoracic surgery. Methods: Patients undergoing video-assisted thoracic surgery at our hospital from March 2022 to May 2023 were included as the subjects of this retrospective study. According to different analgesia methods, they were divided into an ultrasound group (acoustic-guided erector spinae plane block) and a conventional group (thoracic paravertebral block). General demographic data, sufentanil dose, propofol dose, blood loss and fluid replacement volume, puncture depth and time, length of stay, complications, number of analgesic pump compression, forced vital capacity (FVC), 1 s forced expiratory volume (FEV1), peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR), visual simulation (VAS) score, and 15 recovery quality evaluation components were collected Table (QoR-15). Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to balance the baseline data of the two groups. Data were analyzed by t test, chi-square test, and analysis of variance. Results: A total of 116 patients were included in this study, including 52 in the ultrasound group and 64 in the conventional group. Before PSM, statistically significant differences in age, weight, lesion location, and surgical methodmethod existed among the groups (p < 0.05). PSM matching was performed in a 1:1 ratio, and a total of 82 patients were enrolled in the ultrasound and conventional groups. The baseline data of the two groups were not statistically significant. The complications, hospital stay, pressing times of analgesic pump, and puncture depth and time in the ultrasound group were lower than those in the conventional group (p < 0.05). Two groups of tube drawing when resting and cough VAS difference (p > 0.05), but after 12, 24, and 48 h, ultrasonic VAS scores were lower than those of the normal group (p < 0.05). When two groups of T1 lung function difference (p > 0.05), but the T2, T3 FVC, FEV1, and PEFR ultrasound group were higher than those of the conventional group (p < 0.05). No significant difference in preoperative QoR-15 score existed between the two groups (p > 0.05), but the postoperative QoR-15 score in the ultrasound group was higher than that in the conventional group (p < 0.05). Conclusions: Ultrasound-guided erector spinae plane block had stronger analgesic effect, which can reduce the pressing times of analgesic pump, quickly reduce pain, and improve lung function with fewer complications. Thus, it can significantly improve the quality of postoperative recovery and reduce the length of hospital stay, rendering its application worthy of promotion.","PeriodicalId":503802,"journal":{"name":"The Heart Surgery Forum","volume":"35 7","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Heart Surgery Forum","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.59958/hsf.7087","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

Objective: This study aimed to compare the value of thoracic paravertebral block and ultrasound-guided erector spinal muscle plane block in video-assisted analgesia after thoracic surgery. Methods: Patients undergoing video-assisted thoracic surgery at our hospital from March 2022 to May 2023 were included as the subjects of this retrospective study. According to different analgesia methods, they were divided into an ultrasound group (acoustic-guided erector spinae plane block) and a conventional group (thoracic paravertebral block). General demographic data, sufentanil dose, propofol dose, blood loss and fluid replacement volume, puncture depth and time, length of stay, complications, number of analgesic pump compression, forced vital capacity (FVC), 1 s forced expiratory volume (FEV1), peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR), visual simulation (VAS) score, and 15 recovery quality evaluation components were collected Table (QoR-15). Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to balance the baseline data of the two groups. Data were analyzed by t test, chi-square test, and analysis of variance. Results: A total of 116 patients were included in this study, including 52 in the ultrasound group and 64 in the conventional group. Before PSM, statistically significant differences in age, weight, lesion location, and surgical methodmethod existed among the groups (p < 0.05). PSM matching was performed in a 1:1 ratio, and a total of 82 patients were enrolled in the ultrasound and conventional groups. The baseline data of the two groups were not statistically significant. The complications, hospital stay, pressing times of analgesic pump, and puncture depth and time in the ultrasound group were lower than those in the conventional group (p < 0.05). Two groups of tube drawing when resting and cough VAS difference (p > 0.05), but after 12, 24, and 48 h, ultrasonic VAS scores were lower than those of the normal group (p < 0.05). When two groups of T1 lung function difference (p > 0.05), but the T2, T3 FVC, FEV1, and PEFR ultrasound group were higher than those of the conventional group (p < 0.05). No significant difference in preoperative QoR-15 score existed between the two groups (p > 0.05), but the postoperative QoR-15 score in the ultrasound group was higher than that in the conventional group (p < 0.05). Conclusions: Ultrasound-guided erector spinae plane block had stronger analgesic effect, which can reduce the pressing times of analgesic pump, quickly reduce pain, and improve lung function with fewer complications. Thus, it can significantly improve the quality of postoperative recovery and reduce the length of hospital stay, rendering its application worthy of promotion.
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
胸椎旁阻滞与超声引导下脊柱后凸平面阻滞在视频辅助胸外科手术后镇痛效果的比较:回顾性研究
目的:本研究旨在比较胸椎手术后视频辅助镇痛中胸椎旁阻滞和超声引导下竖脊肌平面阻滞的价值。研究方法将 2022 年 3 月至 2023 年 5 月在我院接受视频辅助胸外科手术的患者作为本次回顾性研究的对象。根据不同的镇痛方法,将其分为超声组(声导竖脊平面阻滞)和常规组(胸椎旁阻滞)。收集了一般人口统计学数据、舒芬太尼剂量、丙泊酚剂量、失血量和液体补充量、穿刺深度和时间、住院时间、并发症、镇痛泵按压次数、用力呼吸容量(FVC)、1 秒用力呼气容积(FEV1)、呼气峰流速(PEFR)、视觉模拟(VAS)评分和 15 项恢复质量评价指标(QoR-15)。采用倾向得分匹配法(PSM)平衡两组的基线数据。数据分析采用 t 检验、卡方检验和方差分析。结果本研究共纳入 116 例患者,其中超声组 52 例,常规组 64 例。在 PSM 前,两组患者在年龄、体重、病变位置和手术方法上存在显著差异(P < 0.05)。按 1:1 的比例进行 PSM 匹配,超声组和传统组共纳入 82 名患者。两组的基线数据无统计学意义。超声组的并发症、住院时间、镇痛泵按压时间、穿刺深度和时间均低于常规组(P < 0.05)。两组拔管时静息和咳嗽 VAS 差异(P > 0.05),但 12、24 和 48 h 后,超声组 VAS 评分低于常规组(P < 0.05)。两组 T1 肺功能差异时(P > 0.05),但超声组 T2、T3 FVC、FEV1 和 PEFR 均高于常规组(P < 0.05)。两组术前 QoR-15 评分无明显差异(P > 0.05),但超声组术后 QoR-15 评分高于常规组(P < 0.05)。结论超声引导下竖脊肌平面阻滞具有更强的镇痛效果,可减少镇痛泵的按压次数,快速减轻疼痛,改善肺功能,减少并发症。因此,它能明显改善术后恢复质量,缩短住院时间,值得推广应用。
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
Influence of Serum Apelin and CD40L Expression Levels on Adverse Cardiovascular Events after PCI Effects of Mindfulness Meditation on Anxiety, Self-Efficacy, and Quality of Life in Patients after Coronary Artery Bypass Transplantation Anomalous Origin of the Right Pulmonary Artery from the Ascending Aorta in a 10-Day-Old Boy: A Case Report Surgical Repair of Giant Dissecting Pulmonary Artery Aneurysm Associated with Atrial Septal Defect and Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension: A Case Report Rhythm or Blues: Managing the Electrical State of the Heart with Temporary Pacing Wires
×
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