Comparison between ultrasound-guided intertransverse process and erector spinae plane blocks for breast cancer surgery: A randomised controlled trial.

IF 4.2 2区 医学 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY European Journal of Anaesthesiology Pub Date : 2024-10-30 DOI:10.1097/EJA.0000000000002091
Lulu Qian, Hongye Zhang, Yongsheng Miao, Zongyang Qu, Yuelun Zhang, Bin Hua, Zhen Hua
{"title":"Comparison between ultrasound-guided intertransverse process and erector spinae plane blocks for breast cancer surgery: A randomised controlled trial.","authors":"Lulu Qian, Hongye Zhang, Yongsheng Miao, Zongyang Qu, Yuelun Zhang, Bin Hua, Zhen Hua","doi":"10.1097/EJA.0000000000002091","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Clinical comparisons between intertransverse process block (ITPB) and erector spinae plane block (ESPB) are lacking.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aimed to compare their blocking profile and clinical efficacy in breast cancer surgery.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Randomised, blinded, active-controlled superiority trial.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>A tertiary hospital in China from 20 February to 31 July 2023.</p><p><strong>Patients: </strong>Sixty-eight females undergoing unilateral breast cancer surgery.</p><p><strong>Intervention: </strong>Patients were randomised to receive either ITPB performed at T2-6 (5 ml of 0.5% ropivacaine per level) or ESPB at T4 (25 ml of 0.5% ropivacaine). General anaesthesia and postoperative analgesia were standardised.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>The primary outcome was the number of blocked dermatomes at anterior T2-7, assessed 45 min after block completion, with a predefined superiority margin of 1.5 dermatomes. The important secondary outcome was the worst resting pain scores (11-point numerical rating scale) within 30 min in the recovery room, which was tested following a gatekeeping procedure. Other secondary outcomes included resting pain scores at various time points, use of rescue analgesics, opioid consumption, patient satisfaction, recovery quality score, and adverse effects within 24 h postoperatively.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The ITPB group showed a median [q1, q3] of 5 [4, 6] blocked dermatomes at anterior T2-7, whereas the ESPB group had 1 [0, 4], with a median difference of 4 (95% confidence interval (CI), 3 to 4); the lower 95% CI limit exceeded the predefined superiority margin of 1.5 (superiority P < 0.001). Worst resting pain scores within 30 min in the recovery room in the ITPB group were 1 [0, 2] vs. 3 [1, 4] in the ESPB group, with a median difference of -1 (95% CI, -2 to 0; P = 0.004). Patients in the ITPB group required fewer rescue analgesics within 30 min in the recovery room than did those in the ESPB group. No other clinically relevant results were observed in the secondary outcomes.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Although ITPB demonstrated more consistent anterior dermatomal spread and improved immediate postoperative analgesia compared to ESPB, no additional benefits were identified for breast cancer surgery. Future studies may investigate the potential of ITPB for surgical anaesthesia.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>www.chictr.org.cn (ChiCTR2300068454).</p>","PeriodicalId":11920,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Anaesthesiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Anaesthesiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/EJA.0000000000002091","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Clinical comparisons between intertransverse process block (ITPB) and erector spinae plane block (ESPB) are lacking.

Objective: This study aimed to compare their blocking profile and clinical efficacy in breast cancer surgery.

Design: Randomised, blinded, active-controlled superiority trial.

Setting: A tertiary hospital in China from 20 February to 31 July 2023.

Patients: Sixty-eight females undergoing unilateral breast cancer surgery.

Intervention: Patients were randomised to receive either ITPB performed at T2-6 (5 ml of 0.5% ropivacaine per level) or ESPB at T4 (25 ml of 0.5% ropivacaine). General anaesthesia and postoperative analgesia were standardised.

Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was the number of blocked dermatomes at anterior T2-7, assessed 45 min after block completion, with a predefined superiority margin of 1.5 dermatomes. The important secondary outcome was the worst resting pain scores (11-point numerical rating scale) within 30 min in the recovery room, which was tested following a gatekeeping procedure. Other secondary outcomes included resting pain scores at various time points, use of rescue analgesics, opioid consumption, patient satisfaction, recovery quality score, and adverse effects within 24 h postoperatively.

Results: The ITPB group showed a median [q1, q3] of 5 [4, 6] blocked dermatomes at anterior T2-7, whereas the ESPB group had 1 [0, 4], with a median difference of 4 (95% confidence interval (CI), 3 to 4); the lower 95% CI limit exceeded the predefined superiority margin of 1.5 (superiority P < 0.001). Worst resting pain scores within 30 min in the recovery room in the ITPB group were 1 [0, 2] vs. 3 [1, 4] in the ESPB group, with a median difference of -1 (95% CI, -2 to 0; P = 0.004). Patients in the ITPB group required fewer rescue analgesics within 30 min in the recovery room than did those in the ESPB group. No other clinically relevant results were observed in the secondary outcomes.

Conclusions: Although ITPB demonstrated more consistent anterior dermatomal spread and improved immediate postoperative analgesia compared to ESPB, no additional benefits were identified for breast cancer surgery. Future studies may investigate the potential of ITPB for surgical anaesthesia.

Trial registration: www.chictr.org.cn (ChiCTR2300068454).

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
乳腺癌手术中超声引导下横突间和竖脊平面阻滞的比较:随机对照试验
背景:缺乏横突间阻滞(ITPB)和竖脊平面阻滞(ESPB)的临床比较:本研究旨在比较两者在乳腺癌手术中的阻滞情况和临床疗效:随机、盲法、主动对照优势试验:时间:2023 年 2 月 20 日至 7 月 31 日,地点:中国某三甲医院:68名接受单侧乳腺癌手术的女性:患者随机接受T2-6层的ITPB(每层5毫升0.5%罗哌卡因)或T4层的ESPB(25毫升0.5%罗哌卡因)。全身麻醉和术后镇痛均标准化:主要结果是在阻滞完成 45 分钟后评估前 T2-7 阻滞皮节的数量,预先确定的优势边缘为 1.5 个皮节。重要的次要结果是恢复室 30 分钟内最严重的静息痛评分(11 点数字评分量表),该评分按照把关程序进行测试。其他次要结果包括不同时间点的静息痛评分、抢救性镇痛药的使用、阿片类药物的消耗、患者满意度、恢复质量评分以及术后24小时内的不良反应:ITPB组在前T2-7出现中位数[q1, q3]为5[4, 6]的阻塞皮节,而ESPB组为1[0, 4],中位数差异为4(95%置信区间(CI),3至4);95%CI下限超过了预定义的1.5优越性边缘(优越性P结论):虽然与 ESPB 相比,ITPB 显示出更一致的前皮层扩散,并改善了术后即刻镇痛,但并未发现其对乳腺癌手术有额外的益处。未来的研究可能会调查ITPB在手术麻醉方面的潜力。试验注册:www.chictr.org.cn (ChiCTR2300068454)。
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
6.90
自引率
11.10%
发文量
351
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The European Journal of Anaesthesiology (EJA) publishes original work of high scientific quality in the field of anaesthesiology, pain, emergency medicine and intensive care. Preference is given to experimental work or clinical observation in man, and to laboratory work of clinical relevance. The journal also publishes commissioned reviews by an authority, editorials, invited commentaries, special articles, pro and con debates, and short reports (correspondences, case reports, short reports of clinical studies).
期刊最新文献
A big little problem - postoperative nausea and vomiting incidences are too low! Is it time to add the letter E to the airway management guidelines? Is permissive hypercapnia really pneumoprotective? Reply to: importance of accounting for repeated measure designs when evaluating treatment effects at multiple postoperative days. Rethinking the utility of comparative studies between direct and video laryngoscopy in neonates and infants.
×
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