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
髋臼周围截骨术与硬膜外导管控制疼痛:回顾性队列分析。
背景:髋臼周围截骨术(PAO)是一种治疗有症状的发育性髋关节发育不良的方法。硬膜外镇痛传统上用于围手术期疼痛管理,但可能产生负面的继发效应,包括远端运动和感觉缺陷,以及延迟康复和延长出院时间的低血压。另一种选择是直立脊柱平面阻滞(ESPB),一种超声引导的注射或导管插入到椎管的远程。尽管手术成功率高且并发症少,但ESPB在PAO中的应用尚未得到研究。本研究的目的是回顾性评价ESPB与硬膜外镇痛对PAO疼痛控制的疗效和副作用。方法:单部位患者术前接受硬膜外(n=73)或ESPB (n=73)治疗PAO疼痛。回顾性分析疼痛评分、吗啡当量、并发症和出院细节等数据。采用Welch’st检验、Glass’Delta检验和Fisher精确检验,α水平为0.05表示有统计学意义。结果:两组患者群体、导管使用时间、住院时间均无显著差异(p < 0.05)。术后第0天ESPB组患者的疼痛程度(4.5 [CI: 4.0,4.9])略高于硬膜外组(3.5 [CI: 2.9,4.0]), p=0.008。术后第0天、术后第1天和术后第2天,ESPB组患者比硬膜外组患者需要更少的吗啡当量(结论:ESPB为PAO患者提供了有效的疼痛控制方法。与腰椎硬膜外麻醉相比,患者需要更少的全身性阿片类药物,报告的副作用更少,特别是麻木、症状性低血压和虚弱。ESPB在PAO的多模式疼痛治疗方案中是一个有吸引力的选择。
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
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
Individualized Flow-controlled versus Pressure-controlled Ventilation in Cardiac Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Liposomal Bupivacaine, Plain Bupivacaine, and Saline for Transversus Abdominis Plane Blocks: The CLEVELAND Randomized Trial. Hemoptysis and Hypoxia after Supraglottic Airway Removal. Predicting Preoperative Consultation Clinician Time Using Machine Learning and Electronic Health Record Audit Log Data. Maintaining Lower Fresh Gas Flows When Using Sevoflurane: An Observational Exploration of Data from a Single Center.
×
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:604180095
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