Yuyang Zhu, Yi Yang, Qinyu Zhang, Xuan Li, Wenqiang Xue, Yuan Liu, Yufei Zhao, Wenxia Xu, Peng Yan, Shuang Li, Yu Fang, Jie Huang
{"title":"Comparison of Ultrasound-guided Single-injection Erector Spinae Plane Block, Retrolaminar Block, and Paravertebral Block for Postoperative Analgesia in Single-incision Video-assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery: A 3-arm, Double-blind, Randomized Controlled Noninferiority Trial.","authors":"Yuyang Zhu, Yi Yang, Qinyu Zhang, Xuan Li, Wenqiang Xue, Yuan Liu, Yufei Zhao, Wenxia Xu, Peng Yan, Shuang Li, Yu Fang, Jie Huang","doi":"10.1097/AJP.0000000000001259","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Effective postoperative analgesia is critical for thoracic surgery. This study compares the analgesic efficacy of the erector spinae plane block (ESPB), retrolaminar block (RLB), and paravertebral block (TPVB) in single-incision video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (SITS).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Seventy-six patients underwent general anesthesia followed by ultrasound-guided nerve blocks with 20 mL of 0.5% ropivacaine. Primary outcomes included the area under the curve (AUC) of numeric rating scale (NRS) scores during rest and coughing over 24 hours. Secondary outcomes included perioperative opioid use, plasma biomarkers, and postoperative recovery measures.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The AUC for NRS was 107.8±10.53 in the ESPB group, 104.8±8.05 in the RLB group, and 103.6±10.42 in the TPVB group, demonstrating noninferiority for ESPB (difference: 4.2±3.0, 95% CI: -1.82 to 10.22) and RLB (difference: 1.2±2.6, 95% CI: -3.97 to 6.37) compared with TPVB. No statistically significant differences were observed in opioid use, plasma biomarkers, QoR-15 scores, or adverse events.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>ESPB and RLB provide noninferior analgesia compared with TPVB in SITS patients and are effective alternatives that enhance safety.</p>","PeriodicalId":50678,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Journal of Pain","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Journal of Pain","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/AJP.0000000000001259","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective: Effective postoperative analgesia is critical for thoracic surgery. This study compares the analgesic efficacy of the erector spinae plane block (ESPB), retrolaminar block (RLB), and paravertebral block (TPVB) in single-incision video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (SITS).
Methods: Seventy-six patients underwent general anesthesia followed by ultrasound-guided nerve blocks with 20 mL of 0.5% ropivacaine. Primary outcomes included the area under the curve (AUC) of numeric rating scale (NRS) scores during rest and coughing over 24 hours. Secondary outcomes included perioperative opioid use, plasma biomarkers, and postoperative recovery measures.
Results: The AUC for NRS was 107.8±10.53 in the ESPB group, 104.8±8.05 in the RLB group, and 103.6±10.42 in the TPVB group, demonstrating noninferiority for ESPB (difference: 4.2±3.0, 95% CI: -1.82 to 10.22) and RLB (difference: 1.2±2.6, 95% CI: -3.97 to 6.37) compared with TPVB. No statistically significant differences were observed in opioid use, plasma biomarkers, QoR-15 scores, or adverse events.
Discussion: ESPB and RLB provide noninferior analgesia compared with TPVB in SITS patients and are effective alternatives that enhance safety.
期刊介绍:
The Clinical Journal of Pain explores all aspects of pain and its effective treatment, bringing readers the insights of leading anesthesiologists, surgeons, internists, neurologists, orthopedists, psychiatrists and psychologists, clinical pharmacologists, and rehabilitation medicine specialists. This peer-reviewed journal presents timely and thought-provoking articles on clinical dilemmas in pain management; valuable diagnostic procedures; promising new pharmacological, surgical, and other therapeutic modalities; psychosocial dimensions of pain; and ethical issues of concern to all medical professionals. The journal also publishes Special Topic issues on subjects of particular relevance to the practice of pain medicine.