Periacetabular Osteotomy Multimodal Pain Control Using Erector Spinae Plane vs Epidural Catheter: A Retrospective Cohort Analysis.

IF 9.1 1区 医学 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY Anesthesiology Pub Date : 2025-02-07 DOI:10.1097/ALN.0000000000005409
Anna K Fiedler, Jacob J Siahaan, Alexis H Aboulafia, Angel A Ham, Alfred A Mansour
{"title":"Periacetabular Osteotomy Multimodal Pain Control Using Erector Spinae Plane vs Epidural Catheter: A Retrospective Cohort Analysis.","authors":"Anna K Fiedler, Jacob J Siahaan, Alexis H Aboulafia, Angel A Ham, Alfred A Mansour","doi":"10.1097/ALN.0000000000005409","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) is an established treatment for symptomatic developmental hip dysplasia. Epidural analgesia is traditionally used for perioperative pain management but may have negative secondary effects, including distal motor and sensory deficits, and hypotension which delays rehabilitation and prolongs discharge. One alternative is Erector Spinae Plane Block (ESPB), an ultrasound-guided injection or catheter insertion remote to the spinal canal. Despite high success with minimal complications, ESPB use during PAO has not been studied. This study's purpose was to retrospectively evaluate the efficacy and side effect profile of ESPB compared to epidural analgesia for PAO pain control.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients at a single site received preoperative epidural (n=73) or ESPB (n=73) for PAO pain management. Data including pain scores, morphine equivalents, complications, and discharge details was retrospectively reviewed. Welch's t test, Glass' Delta, and Fisher exact tests were utilized, with an alpha level of 0.05 to indicate statistical significance.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were no significant differences in patient populations, catheter use duration, or length of stay between groups (p>0.05). Patients reported slightly more pain with ESPB on postoperative day 0 (4.5 [CI: 4.0,4.9]) compared to epidural (3.5 [CI: 2.9,4.0]), p=0.008. Patients who received ESPB required fewer morphine equivalents than epidural patients on postoperative day 0, postoperative day 1, and postoperative day 2 (p<0.001). The epidural cohort had more weakness (16.44%), numbness (39.73%), and symptomatic hypotension (10.96%) compared to the ESPB cohort (4.11%, 9.59%, 1.37% respectively, p=0.03, p<0.001, p=0.03). Epidural patients were more likely to report adverse events (17.81% vs 43.16%, p<0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>ESPB provides an effective method of pain control for PAO patients. Compared to lumbar epidurals, patients required less systemic opioids and reported fewer side effects, particularly numbness, symptomatic hypotension, and weakness. ESPB is an attractive option in multimodal pain protocol for PAO.</p>","PeriodicalId":7970,"journal":{"name":"Anesthesiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anesthesiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/ALN.0000000000005409","RegionNum":1,"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: Periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) is an established treatment for symptomatic developmental hip dysplasia. Epidural analgesia is traditionally used for perioperative pain management but may have negative secondary effects, including distal motor and sensory deficits, and hypotension which delays rehabilitation and prolongs discharge. One alternative is Erector Spinae Plane Block (ESPB), an ultrasound-guided injection or catheter insertion remote to the spinal canal. Despite high success with minimal complications, ESPB use during PAO has not been studied. This study's purpose was to retrospectively evaluate the efficacy and side effect profile of ESPB compared to epidural analgesia for PAO pain control.

Methods: Patients at a single site received preoperative epidural (n=73) or ESPB (n=73) for PAO pain management. Data including pain scores, morphine equivalents, complications, and discharge details was retrospectively reviewed. Welch's t test, Glass' Delta, and Fisher exact tests were utilized, with an alpha level of 0.05 to indicate statistical significance.

Results: There were no significant differences in patient populations, catheter use duration, or length of stay between groups (p>0.05). Patients reported slightly more pain with ESPB on postoperative day 0 (4.5 [CI: 4.0,4.9]) compared to epidural (3.5 [CI: 2.9,4.0]), p=0.008. Patients who received ESPB required fewer morphine equivalents than epidural patients on postoperative day 0, postoperative day 1, and postoperative day 2 (p<0.001). The epidural cohort had more weakness (16.44%), numbness (39.73%), and symptomatic hypotension (10.96%) compared to the ESPB cohort (4.11%, 9.59%, 1.37% respectively, p=0.03, p<0.001, p=0.03). Epidural patients were more likely to report adverse events (17.81% vs 43.16%, p<0.001).

Conclusion: ESPB provides an effective method of pain control for PAO patients. Compared to lumbar epidurals, patients required less systemic opioids and reported fewer side effects, particularly numbness, symptomatic hypotension, and weakness. ESPB is an attractive option in multimodal pain protocol for PAO.

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
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Anesthesiology
Anesthesiology 医学-麻醉学
CiteScore
10.40
自引率
5.70%
发文量
542
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: With its establishment in 1940, Anesthesiology has emerged as a prominent leader in the field of anesthesiology, encompassing perioperative, critical care, and pain medicine. As the esteemed journal of the American Society of Anesthesiologists, Anesthesiology operates independently with full editorial freedom. Its distinguished Editorial Board, comprising renowned professionals from across the globe, drives the advancement of the specialty by presenting innovative research through immediate open access to select articles and granting free access to all published articles after a six-month period. Furthermore, Anesthesiology actively promotes groundbreaking studies through an influential press release program. The journal's unwavering commitment lies in the dissemination of exemplary work that enhances clinical practice and revolutionizes the practice of medicine within our discipline.
期刊最新文献
Airway Injury during Double-lumen Endotracheal Intubation. Periacetabular Osteotomy Multimodal Pain Control Using Erector Spinae Plane vs Epidural Catheter: A Retrospective Cohort Analysis. Comparative methods to predict redosing of bupivacaine and ropivacaine in truncal catheters. Measuring Well-Being Influencers: Development and Validation of the WISH Inventory. Catheter-related Internal Jugular Vein Thrombosis in Neonates and Long-term Consequences: A Prospective Cohort Study.
×
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