Multimodal analgesia with thoracic paravertebral block decrease pain and side effects in mastectomy patients.

Pei-Chin Liu, Fu-Wei Su, Yi-Fang Tsai, Yen-Shu Lin, Chun-Sung Sung, Ling-Ming Tseng, Wei-Nung Teng
{"title":"Multimodal analgesia with thoracic paravertebral block decrease pain and side effects in mastectomy patients.","authors":"Pei-Chin Liu, Fu-Wei Su, Yi-Fang Tsai, Yen-Shu Lin, Chun-Sung Sung, Ling-Ming Tseng, Wei-Nung Teng","doi":"10.1097/JCMA.0000000000001218","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols incorporating multimodal analgesia (MMA) have become increasingly popular for breast cancer surgery. Our study evaluated an ERAS approach that combined nonintubated general anesthesia with thoracic paravertebral block (TPVB) as part of the MMA and compared it to traditional general anesthesia (GA). Postoperative outcomes were assessed using numerical rating scale (NRS) pain scores, total analgesic consumption, and nausea and vomiting (PONV).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We reviewed the medical records of 60 female patients aged 30-85 years who underwent unilateral mastectomy with or without sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB). Thirty patients received nonintubated general anesthesia with a regional block (MMA group), whereas the remaining 30 patients received conventional GA and were matched based on their anesthesia records. Postoperative analgesics, including pethidine and tramadol, were converted into intravenous morphine equivalents. We compared the groups using paired t tests for age, height, weight, operation duration, NRS scores, total analgesic dosage, and the Fisher exact test for PONV rates.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The MMA group showed significantly lower NRS scores (p < 0.001) and total analgesic consumption (p < 0.001) than the GA group. Although PONV rates were lower in the MMA group (0% vs 13%, p = 0.112), this difference was not statistically significant, likely due to the effective PONV management in the GA group with dexamethasone or 5HT-3 antagonists. There was no significant difference in pain scores (p = 0.722) or the need for additional analgesics (p = 0.419) between double- and triple-level TPVB.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Nonintubated general anesthesia with TIVA and MMA using TPVB is a viable and safe alternative for breast cancer surgery. It results in reduced pain scores and analgesic needs compared with conventional GA, with PONV outcomes comparable to those managed with standard intravenous medications.</p>","PeriodicalId":94115,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Chinese Medical Association : JCMA","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Chinese Medical Association : JCMA","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/JCMA.0000000000001218","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols incorporating multimodal analgesia (MMA) have become increasingly popular for breast cancer surgery. Our study evaluated an ERAS approach that combined nonintubated general anesthesia with thoracic paravertebral block (TPVB) as part of the MMA and compared it to traditional general anesthesia (GA). Postoperative outcomes were assessed using numerical rating scale (NRS) pain scores, total analgesic consumption, and nausea and vomiting (PONV).

Methods: We reviewed the medical records of 60 female patients aged 30-85 years who underwent unilateral mastectomy with or without sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB). Thirty patients received nonintubated general anesthesia with a regional block (MMA group), whereas the remaining 30 patients received conventional GA and were matched based on their anesthesia records. Postoperative analgesics, including pethidine and tramadol, were converted into intravenous morphine equivalents. We compared the groups using paired t tests for age, height, weight, operation duration, NRS scores, total analgesic dosage, and the Fisher exact test for PONV rates.

Results: The MMA group showed significantly lower NRS scores (p < 0.001) and total analgesic consumption (p < 0.001) than the GA group. Although PONV rates were lower in the MMA group (0% vs 13%, p = 0.112), this difference was not statistically significant, likely due to the effective PONV management in the GA group with dexamethasone or 5HT-3 antagonists. There was no significant difference in pain scores (p = 0.722) or the need for additional analgesics (p = 0.419) between double- and triple-level TPVB.

Conclusion: Nonintubated general anesthesia with TIVA and MMA using TPVB is a viable and safe alternative for breast cancer surgery. It results in reduced pain scores and analgesic needs compared with conventional GA, with PONV outcomes comparable to those managed with standard intravenous medications.

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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Air pollution causes abnormal alanine aminotransferase levels in patients with chronic hepatitis B. Digital PCR quantification of hematopoietic chimerism by insertion/deletion: A personalized selection for different chimerism status. Multimodal analgesia with thoracic paravertebral block decrease pain and side effects in mastectomy patients. Three decades of pediatric intoxication trends in Taiwan: A retrospective cohort analysis (1985-2020). Work-related factors of low back pain among Indonesian manufacturing workers in Taiwan.
×
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