Rhomboid Intercostal versus Serratus Anterior Plane Block for Analgesia After Thoracodorsal Artery Perforator Flap Following Partial Mastectomy: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

IF 2.6 2区 医学 Q2 ANESTHESIOLOGY Pain physician Pub Date : 2025-01-01
Shereen E Abd Ellatif, Emad Salah Ibrahim, Heba M Fathi
{"title":"Rhomboid Intercostal versus Serratus Anterior Plane Block for Analgesia After Thoracodorsal Artery Perforator Flap Following Partial Mastectomy: A Randomized Controlled Trial.","authors":"Shereen E Abd Ellatif, Emad Salah Ibrahim, Heba M Fathi","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The thoracodorsal artery perforator (TDAP) flap has been developed to improve the postoperative aesthetic and psychological states of patients who receive breast-conserving surgery (BCS); nonetheless, the TDAP flap exacerbates the pain that occurs at 2 surgical sites.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This trial aimed to compare the efficacy of the rhomboid intercostal block (RIB) and the serratus anterior plane block (SAB) as postoperative analgesics for BCS.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>Prospective randomized controlled clinical trial.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>This clinical trial was conducted at Zagazig University Hospitals.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Eighty-four patients scheduled for BCS followed by a TDAP flap were randomly divided into 3 groups (of 28 patients each). Group C received general anesthesia, and groups SAB and RIB received SAB and RIB blocks, respectively, followed by general anesthesia. The cumulative tramadol consumption within 24 hours after the operation was the primary outcome. The postoperative pain score, first-rescue analgesic time, and sensory block coverage were the secondary outcomes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The 24-hour cumulative tramadol consumption and duration of the first rescue analgesic were significantly lower and longer, respectively, in the RIB group, than in the SAB group or the control group. The VAS score was lower in the RIB group than in the SAB or control group at all measurement times, except at 24 hours postoperatively, and the values among the groups were not significantly different. Dermatomal coverage of the anterior and posterior hemithorax extended from T2-T9 in the RIB group and from T2-T10 in the anterior hemithorax only in the SAB group.</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>Both block procedures were applied as single shots, and their impact on chronic postoperative pain was not assessed; the observation may therefore be drawn that a continuous local anesthetic (LA) infusion catheter could be used to extend the period of analgesia.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Because of its ability to block both the anterior and posterior hemithorax, the RIB, is more efficient than the SAB at controlling acute pain and reducing opioid consumption in patients undergoing BCS followed by TDAP flaps; thus, the RIB can be employed as a potential alternative in these surgeries.</p>","PeriodicalId":19841,"journal":{"name":"Pain physician","volume":"28 1","pages":"E1-E12"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pain physician","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":2,"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

Background: The thoracodorsal artery perforator (TDAP) flap has been developed to improve the postoperative aesthetic and psychological states of patients who receive breast-conserving surgery (BCS); nonetheless, the TDAP flap exacerbates the pain that occurs at 2 surgical sites.

Objectives: This trial aimed to compare the efficacy of the rhomboid intercostal block (RIB) and the serratus anterior plane block (SAB) as postoperative analgesics for BCS.

Study design: Prospective randomized controlled clinical trial.

Setting: This clinical trial was conducted at Zagazig University Hospitals.

Methods: Eighty-four patients scheduled for BCS followed by a TDAP flap were randomly divided into 3 groups (of 28 patients each). Group C received general anesthesia, and groups SAB and RIB received SAB and RIB blocks, respectively, followed by general anesthesia. The cumulative tramadol consumption within 24 hours after the operation was the primary outcome. The postoperative pain score, first-rescue analgesic time, and sensory block coverage were the secondary outcomes.

Results: The 24-hour cumulative tramadol consumption and duration of the first rescue analgesic were significantly lower and longer, respectively, in the RIB group, than in the SAB group or the control group. The VAS score was lower in the RIB group than in the SAB or control group at all measurement times, except at 24 hours postoperatively, and the values among the groups were not significantly different. Dermatomal coverage of the anterior and posterior hemithorax extended from T2-T9 in the RIB group and from T2-T10 in the anterior hemithorax only in the SAB group.

Limitations: Both block procedures were applied as single shots, and their impact on chronic postoperative pain was not assessed; the observation may therefore be drawn that a continuous local anesthetic (LA) infusion catheter could be used to extend the period of analgesia.

Conclusion: Because of its ability to block both the anterior and posterior hemithorax, the RIB, is more efficient than the SAB at controlling acute pain and reducing opioid consumption in patients undergoing BCS followed by TDAP flaps; thus, the RIB can be employed as a potential alternative in these surgeries.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
背景:胸背动脉穿孔器(TDAP)皮瓣的开发是为了改善保乳手术(BCS)患者的术后美观和心理状态;然而,TDAP皮瓣会加剧两个手术部位的疼痛:本试验旨在比较斜方肌肋间阻滞(RIB)和锯肌前平面阻滞(SAB)作为保乳手术术后镇痛剂的疗效:前瞻性随机对照临床试验:研究设计:前瞻性随机对照临床试验:84名计划接受BCS术后TDAP皮瓣术的患者被随机分为3组(每组28人)。C 组接受全身麻醉,SAB 和 RIB 组分别接受 SAB 和 RIB 阻滞,然后进行全身麻醉。手术后 24 小时内的曲马多累计用量是主要结果。术后疼痛评分、首次镇痛时间和感觉阻滞覆盖率是次要结果:结果:RIB组的24小时累计曲马多用量和首次镇痛抢救持续时间分别显著低于SAB组和对照组。除术后24小时外,RIB组在所有测量时间的VAS评分均低于SAB组或对照组,且各组间的数值无明显差异。RIB组前后半胸的皮膜覆盖范围为T2-T9,而SAB组仅前半胸的皮膜覆盖范围为T2-T10:局限性:两种阻滞方法均为单次阻滞,且未评估其对术后慢性疼痛的影响;因此可以得出结论,使用持续的局麻药(LA)输注导管可延长镇痛时间:结论:由于 RIB 能够阻滞前后半胸腔,因此与 SAB 相比,RIB 能够更有效地控制 BCS 后 TDAP 皮瓣术患者的急性疼痛并减少阿片类药物的用量;因此,RIB 可以作为此类手术的潜在替代方法。
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
Pain physician
Pain physician CLINICAL NEUROLOGY-CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
21.60%
发文量
234
期刊介绍: Pain Physician Journal is the official publication of the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP). The open access journal is published 6 times a year. Pain Physician Journal is a peer-reviewed, multi-disciplinary, open access journal written by and directed to an audience of interventional pain physicians, clinicians and basic scientists with an interest in interventional pain management and pain medicine. Pain Physician Journal presents the latest studies, research, and information vital to those in the emerging specialty of interventional pain management – and critical to the people they serve.
期刊最新文献
Association Between 25-hydroxyvitamin D Status and New Vertebral Fractures Post Percutaneous Vertebral Augmentation in Patients During Postmenopause: A Retrospective Case-control Study. Clinical Trial of Ozonated Water Enema for the Treatment of Fibromyalgia: A Randomized, Double-Blind Trial. Comment on "A Novel Sequential Percutaneous Radiofrequency Treatment Strategy for Drug-refractory Trigeminal Neuralgia: A Propensity Score-matched Study". Comment on "Comparative Study Between the Analgesic Effect of Prednisolone and Pregabalin in Managing Post Dural Puncture Headache after Lower-limb Surgeries". Comment on "Comparison of the Efficacy of Ultrasound-Guided Suprascapular Nerve Blocks and Intraarticular Corticosteroid Injections for Frozen Shoulder: A Randomized Controlled Trial".
×
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