Comparative efficacy of ultrasound-guided erector spinae plane block versus wound infiltration for postoperative analgesia in instrumented lumbar spinal surgeries.

IF 4.6 Q2 MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS ACS Applied Bio Materials Pub Date : 2024-10-15 DOI:10.1186/s12871-024-02754-9
Yucel Yuce, Secil Azime Karakus, Tahsin Simsek, Ceren Onal, Ozlem Sezen, Banu Cevik, Evren Aydogmus
{"title":"Comparative efficacy of ultrasound-guided erector spinae plane block versus wound infiltration for postoperative analgesia in instrumented lumbar spinal surgeries.","authors":"Yucel Yuce, Secil Azime Karakus, Tahsin Simsek, Ceren Onal, Ozlem Sezen, Banu Cevik, Evren Aydogmus","doi":"10.1186/s12871-024-02754-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study compared the efficacy of ultrasound-guided erector spinae plane block (ESPB) and wound infiltration (WI) for postoperative analgesia in patients who underwent lumbar spinal surgery with instrumentation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this randomized controlled trial, 80 patients were divided into two groups: ESPB (n = 40) and WI (n = 40). Postoperative pain intensity was assessed via the visual analog scale (VAS) at multiple time points within 24 h. Additionally, opioid consumption, time to first rescue analgesia, incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), and patient satisfaction were evaluated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Both ESPB and WI provided effective postoperative pain management, with no significant differences in VAS scores. However, the ESPB group demonstrated a significantly longer duration of analgesia, a shorter time to first rescue analgesia, and lower total tramadol consumption (50 ± 60 mg vs. 100 ± 75 mg; p = 0.010) than did the WI group. Furthermore, a trend toward reduced PONV incidence was observed in the ESPB group, likely due to its opioid-sparing effect.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>While both ESPB and WI provided effective postoperative pain management, ESPB demonstrated a distinct advantage by offering a longer duration of analgesia and significantly reducing opioid consumption. These findings suggest that ESPB is more effective than WI for postoperative analgesia in lumbar spinal surgeries, providing prolonged pain relief and improving patient outcomes. Further studies are warranted to explore its long-term benefits and cost-effectiveness.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>ClinicalTrials.govPRS: NCT06567964 Date: 08/21/2024 Retrospectively registered.</p>","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11476798/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12871-024-02754-9","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: This study compared the efficacy of ultrasound-guided erector spinae plane block (ESPB) and wound infiltration (WI) for postoperative analgesia in patients who underwent lumbar spinal surgery with instrumentation.

Methods: In this randomized controlled trial, 80 patients were divided into two groups: ESPB (n = 40) and WI (n = 40). Postoperative pain intensity was assessed via the visual analog scale (VAS) at multiple time points within 24 h. Additionally, opioid consumption, time to first rescue analgesia, incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), and patient satisfaction were evaluated.

Results: Both ESPB and WI provided effective postoperative pain management, with no significant differences in VAS scores. However, the ESPB group demonstrated a significantly longer duration of analgesia, a shorter time to first rescue analgesia, and lower total tramadol consumption (50 ± 60 mg vs. 100 ± 75 mg; p = 0.010) than did the WI group. Furthermore, a trend toward reduced PONV incidence was observed in the ESPB group, likely due to its opioid-sparing effect.

Conclusion: While both ESPB and WI provided effective postoperative pain management, ESPB demonstrated a distinct advantage by offering a longer duration of analgesia and significantly reducing opioid consumption. These findings suggest that ESPB is more effective than WI for postoperative analgesia in lumbar spinal surgeries, providing prolonged pain relief and improving patient outcomes. Further studies are warranted to explore its long-term benefits and cost-effectiveness.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.govPRS: NCT06567964 Date: 08/21/2024 Retrospectively registered.

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
超声引导下竖脊肌平面阻滞与伤口浸润在腰椎器械手术术后镇痛中的疗效比较。
目的:本研究比较了超声引导下直立脊平面阻滞(ESPB)和伤口浸润(WI)对接受腰椎器械手术患者的术后镇痛效果:在这项随机对照试验中,80 名患者被分为两组:方法:在这项随机对照试验中,80 名患者被分为两组:ESPB 组(40 人)和 WI 组(40 人)。此外,还对阿片类药物的消耗量、首次镇痛抢救时间、术后恶心呕吐(PONV)发生率以及患者满意度进行了评估:ESPB组和WI组均能有效控制术后疼痛,VAS评分无显著差异。然而,ESPB 组的镇痛持续时间明显长于 WI 组,首次抢救镇痛时间更短,曲马多总用量更少(50±60 毫克对 100±75 毫克;P = 0.010)。此外,ESPB组的PONV发生率呈下降趋势,这可能是由于ESPB具有阿片类药物稀释作用:虽然ESPB和WI都能提供有效的术后疼痛管理,但ESPB通过提供更长的镇痛时间和显著减少阿片类药物的用量显示出了明显的优势。这些研究结果表明,在腰椎手术的术后镇痛中,ESPB 比 WI 更有效,可提供更长的镇痛时间并改善患者预后。我们需要进一步研究ESPB的长期疗效和成本效益:临床试验注册:ClinicalTrials.govPRS:NCT06567964 日期:08/21/2024 追溯注册。
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
ACS Applied Bio Materials
ACS Applied Bio Materials Chemistry-Chemistry (all)
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
2.10%
发文量
464
期刊最新文献
A Systematic Review of Sleep Disturbance in Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension. Advancing Patient Education in Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension: The Promise of Large Language Models. Anti-Myelin-Associated Glycoprotein Neuropathy: Recent Developments. Approach to Managing the Initial Presentation of Multiple Sclerosis: A Worldwide Practice Survey. Association Between LACE+ Index Risk Category and 90-Day Mortality After Stroke.
×
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