Comparison of ultrasound-guided erector spinae plane block with ultrasound-guided pericapsular nerve group block for paediatric hip surgery: A randomised, double-blinded study

IF 2.9 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY Indian Journal of Anaesthesia Pub Date : 2024-06-07 DOI:10.4103/ija.ija_867_23
T. Mostafa, A. Omara, N. Khalil
{"title":"Comparison of ultrasound-guided erector spinae plane block with ultrasound-guided pericapsular nerve group block for paediatric hip surgery: A randomised, double-blinded study","authors":"T. Mostafa, A. Omara, N. Khalil","doi":"10.4103/ija.ija_867_23","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n Postoperative pain after hip surgeries in children could be classified as severe, requiring combined intra- and postoperative opioid analgesia with regional blocks. This study was carried out to investigate ultrasound-guided pericapsular nerve group (PENG) block versus ultrasound-guided erector spinae plane (ESP) block for pain management after paediatric hip surgery. The primary objective was to assess the time of the first request for morphine rescue analgesia.\n \n \n \n In this randomised study, 56 children scheduled for elective unilateral hip surgery were distributed randomly to ESP and PENG groups. Intraoperative haemodynamics, fentanyl consumption, postoperative pain measurement, morphine consumption, time of first rescue analgesia, adverse effects and parents’ satisfaction score were studied. The primary outcome was the time of the first request for morphine rescue analgesia. The Chi-square test, Student’s t-test and the Mann–Whitney U test were used, where applicable, to compare the groups.\n \n \n \n The time to first rescue analgesia was significantly longer in Group ESP than in Group PENG (P < 0.001), with significantly higher postoperative morphine consumption in Group PENG than in Group ESP (P = 0.04). The pain scores of Group ESP were lower than those of Group PENG at 2 and 4 h postoperatively (P = 0.006 and P < 0.001, respectively). At 8 h postoperatively, the score was significantly higher in Group ESP than in Group PENG (P = 0.005). Other outcomes were comparable between both groups (P > 0.05).\n \n \n \n ESP and PENG could be both effective for intraoperative and postoperative analgesia in paediatric hip surgeries, but the ESP block prolonged the time of first rescue analgesia more than the PENG block.\n","PeriodicalId":13339,"journal":{"name":"Indian Journal of Anaesthesia","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indian Journal of Anaesthesia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/ija.ija_867_23","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Postoperative pain after hip surgeries in children could be classified as severe, requiring combined intra- and postoperative opioid analgesia with regional blocks. This study was carried out to investigate ultrasound-guided pericapsular nerve group (PENG) block versus ultrasound-guided erector spinae plane (ESP) block for pain management after paediatric hip surgery. The primary objective was to assess the time of the first request for morphine rescue analgesia. In this randomised study, 56 children scheduled for elective unilateral hip surgery were distributed randomly to ESP and PENG groups. Intraoperative haemodynamics, fentanyl consumption, postoperative pain measurement, morphine consumption, time of first rescue analgesia, adverse effects and parents’ satisfaction score were studied. The primary outcome was the time of the first request for morphine rescue analgesia. The Chi-square test, Student’s t-test and the Mann–Whitney U test were used, where applicable, to compare the groups. The time to first rescue analgesia was significantly longer in Group ESP than in Group PENG (P < 0.001), with significantly higher postoperative morphine consumption in Group PENG than in Group ESP (P = 0.04). The pain scores of Group ESP were lower than those of Group PENG at 2 and 4 h postoperatively (P = 0.006 and P < 0.001, respectively). At 8 h postoperatively, the score was significantly higher in Group ESP than in Group PENG (P = 0.005). Other outcomes were comparable between both groups (P > 0.05). ESP and PENG could be both effective for intraoperative and postoperative analgesia in paediatric hip surgeries, but the ESP block prolonged the time of first rescue analgesia more than the PENG block.
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
儿科髋关节手术中超声引导下竖脊肌平面阻滞与超声引导下囊周神经组阻滞的比较:随机双盲研究
儿童髋关节手术后的疼痛可被归类为严重疼痛,需要术中和术后联合使用阿片类镇痛药和区域阻滞。本研究旨在探讨超声引导下囊周神经群(PENG)阻滞与超声引导下竖脊面(ESP)阻滞在儿童髋关节手术后疼痛治疗中的应用。主要目的是评估首次请求吗啡镇痛的时间。 在这项随机研究中,56名计划接受择期单侧髋关节手术的儿童被随机分配到ESP组和PENG组。研究了术中血流动力学、芬太尼消耗量、术后疼痛测量、吗啡消耗量、首次镇痛抢救时间、不良反应和家长满意度评分。主要结果是首次请求吗啡镇痛的时间。在适当的情况下,采用卡方检验、学生 t 检验和曼-惠特尼 U 检验对各组进行比较。 ESP组首次抢救性镇痛时间明显长于PENG组(P < 0.001),PENG组术后吗啡消耗量明显高于ESP组(P = 0.04)。术后 2 小时和 4 小时,ESP 组的疼痛评分低于 PENG 组(分别为 P = 0.006 和 P <0.001)。术后 8 小时,ESP 组的疼痛评分明显高于 PENG 组(P = 0.005)。两组的其他结果相当(P > 0.05)。 ESP和PENG对小儿髋关节手术的术中和术后镇痛均有效,但ESP阻滞比PENG阻滞更能延长首次抢救性镇痛的时间。
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
4.20
自引率
44.80%
发文量
210
审稿时长
36 weeks
期刊最新文献
ABCs of anaesthesia private practice: Adapting, building and conquering. Anaesthetic management of a child with suspected Opitz-Kaveggia syndrome. Awake Seldinger technique-based tracheal intubation in near-total laryngeal obstruction. Bridging the pain gap after cancer surgery - Evaluating the feasibility of transitional pain service to prevent persistent postsurgical pain - A systematic review and meta-analysis. Challenges in central venous catheter placement due to thoracic venous anomaly in an infant - A case report.
×
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