Comparison of intrathecal morphine versus erector spinae block for postoperative analgesia in patients with end-stage kidney disease undergoing kidney transplantation: A randomised clinical study.

IF 2.9 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY Indian Journal of Anaesthesia Pub Date : 2024-07-01 Epub Date: 2024-06-07 DOI:10.4103/ija.ija_271_24
Saurabh Mittal, Medha Bhardwaj, Praveenkumar Shekhrajka, Vipin Kumar Goyal
{"title":"Comparison of intrathecal morphine versus erector spinae block for postoperative analgesia in patients with end-stage kidney disease undergoing kidney transplantation: A randomised clinical study.","authors":"Saurabh Mittal, Medha Bhardwaj, Praveenkumar Shekhrajka, Vipin Kumar Goyal","doi":"10.4103/ija.ija_271_24","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and aims: </strong>Intrathecal morphine (ITM) or erector spinae plane (ESP) block reduces postsurgical pain in patients who underwent kidney transplantation surgeries. We aimed to compare the effectiveness of both modalities in terms of duration and quality of postoperative analgesia along with postoperative fentanyl consumption.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a randomised study and analysed 60 patients posted for elective live-related kidney transplantation surgery. They were randomised into two groups. Group M patients received ITM, whereas Group E patients received ESP block. We standardised the postoperative analgesia for both groups with intravenous fentanyl-based patient-controlled analgesia. The primary outcome was to compare the quality of analgesia using the numerical rating scale score between the groups. The secondary outcome was to observe the effect of both modalities on the duration of analgesia, postoperative fentanyl consumption, rescue analgesics requirement, catheter-related bladder discomfort and any complications.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We found significantly lower pain scores at rest and while coughing in Group M at all time intervals, except at 24 h while coughing. The mean time to first analgesia requirement was significantly longer in Group M than in Group E (<i>P</i> = 0.002). No significant difference was found in postoperative consumption of total fentanyl (<i>P</i> = 0.065) and rescue analgesia in both groups. In Group M, there was significantly more nausea, vomiting and pruritus (<i>P</i> = 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>ITM provides long-lasting postoperative analgesia at the cost of higher side effects than ESP block.</p>","PeriodicalId":13339,"journal":{"name":"Indian Journal of Anaesthesia","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11285891/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indian Journal of Anaesthesia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/ija.ija_271_24","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/7 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and aims: Intrathecal morphine (ITM) or erector spinae plane (ESP) block reduces postsurgical pain in patients who underwent kidney transplantation surgeries. We aimed to compare the effectiveness of both modalities in terms of duration and quality of postoperative analgesia along with postoperative fentanyl consumption.

Methods: We conducted a randomised study and analysed 60 patients posted for elective live-related kidney transplantation surgery. They were randomised into two groups. Group M patients received ITM, whereas Group E patients received ESP block. We standardised the postoperative analgesia for both groups with intravenous fentanyl-based patient-controlled analgesia. The primary outcome was to compare the quality of analgesia using the numerical rating scale score between the groups. The secondary outcome was to observe the effect of both modalities on the duration of analgesia, postoperative fentanyl consumption, rescue analgesics requirement, catheter-related bladder discomfort and any complications.

Results: We found significantly lower pain scores at rest and while coughing in Group M at all time intervals, except at 24 h while coughing. The mean time to first analgesia requirement was significantly longer in Group M than in Group E (P = 0.002). No significant difference was found in postoperative consumption of total fentanyl (P = 0.065) and rescue analgesia in both groups. In Group M, there was significantly more nausea, vomiting and pruritus (P = 0.001).

Conclusions: ITM provides long-lasting postoperative analgesia at the cost of higher side effects than ESP 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
肾移植终末期肾病患者术后镇痛中鞘内吗啡与竖脊阻滞的比较:随机临床研究。
背景和目的:鞘内吗啡(ITM)或竖脊平面(ESP)阻滞可减轻肾移植手术患者的术后疼痛。我们旨在从术后镇痛的持续时间和质量以及术后芬太尼消耗量方面比较两种方式的有效性:我们进行了一项随机研究,分析了 60 名接受择期活体肾移植手术的患者。他们被随机分为两组。M 组患者接受 ITM,而 E 组患者接受 ESP 阻滞。我们对两组患者的术后镇痛进行了标准化,采用静脉注射芬太尼患者自控镇痛。主要结果是比较两组患者的镇痛质量,采用的是数字评分量表。次要结果是观察两种镇痛方式对镇痛持续时间、术后芬太尼用量、抢救镇痛药需求、导尿管相关膀胱不适和并发症的影响:我们发现,除 24 小时内咳嗽时的疼痛评分外,M 组在休息时和咳嗽时的疼痛评分在所有时间间隔内均明显较低。M 组首次需要镇痛的平均时间明显长于 E 组(P = 0.002)。两组的术后芬太尼总用量(P = 0.065)和镇痛抢救用量无明显差异。结论:ITM能提供持久的术后镇痛,但副作用高于ESP阻滞。
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