Evaluation of ultrasound guided erector spinae plane block efficacy on post operative pain in lumbar spine surgery: a randomized clinical trial.

IF 0.8 Q3 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Agri-The Journal of the Turkish Society of Algology Pub Date : 2022-07-01 DOI:10.14744/agri.2021.04864
Masoud Nashibi, Arash Tafrishinejad, Farhad Safari, Sogol Asgari, Parisa Sezari, Kamran Mottaghi
{"title":"Evaluation of ultrasound guided erector spinae plane block efficacy on post operative pain in lumbar spine surgery: a randomized clinical trial.","authors":"Masoud Nashibi,&nbsp;Arash Tafrishinejad,&nbsp;Farhad Safari,&nbsp;Sogol Asgari,&nbsp;Parisa Sezari,&nbsp;Kamran Mottaghi","doi":"10.14744/agri.2021.04864","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Patients suffer notable levels of pain after lumbar spine surgery. The primary objective of this randomized clinical trial is to investigate the efficacy of erector spinae plane block (ESPB) on 24-h post-operative pain score of patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery. Cumulative opioid consumption and intraoperative bleeding were assessed as well.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Adult patient candidates for elective lumbar spine surgery were randomly assigned to case (ESPB) and control (no ESPB) groups. The block was performed under ultrasound guidance in prone position after induction of general anesthesia. Both groups received the same anesthesia medication and technique. Post-operative pain score, number of patients requiring rescue analgesia (meperidine), total amount of post-operative rescue analgesic demand in the first 24 h, and intraoperative bleeding were recorded. To compare pain score variable in time span, the ANOVA repeated measure test was used. All the statistical tests were two tailed and p<0.05 considered as statistically significant.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In all time intervals, pain score in case group was significantly lower than control group. In case group, eight patients demanded rescue analgesic (40%) which was significantly lower than that in control group (15 patients [75%]) (p=0.025). Total amount of meperidine consumption was 57.50±45.95 in control group and 22.50±32.34 in case group (p=0.01) which was higher in control group and statistically significant.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>ESPB reduces post-operative pain score and opioid consumption, while it does not affect intraoperative bleeding in lumbar spine surgery.</p>","PeriodicalId":45603,"journal":{"name":"Agri-The Journal of the Turkish Society of Algology","volume":"34 3","pages":"174-179"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Agri-The Journal of the Turkish Society of Algology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14744/agri.2021.04864","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Objectives: Patients suffer notable levels of pain after lumbar spine surgery. The primary objective of this randomized clinical trial is to investigate the efficacy of erector spinae plane block (ESPB) on 24-h post-operative pain score of patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery. Cumulative opioid consumption and intraoperative bleeding were assessed as well.

Methods: Adult patient candidates for elective lumbar spine surgery were randomly assigned to case (ESPB) and control (no ESPB) groups. The block was performed under ultrasound guidance in prone position after induction of general anesthesia. Both groups received the same anesthesia medication and technique. Post-operative pain score, number of patients requiring rescue analgesia (meperidine), total amount of post-operative rescue analgesic demand in the first 24 h, and intraoperative bleeding were recorded. To compare pain score variable in time span, the ANOVA repeated measure test was used. All the statistical tests were two tailed and p<0.05 considered as statistically significant.

Results: In all time intervals, pain score in case group was significantly lower than control group. In case group, eight patients demanded rescue analgesic (40%) which was significantly lower than that in control group (15 patients [75%]) (p=0.025). Total amount of meperidine consumption was 57.50±45.95 in control group and 22.50±32.34 in case group (p=0.01) which was higher in control group and statistically significant.

Conclusion: ESPB reduces post-operative pain score and opioid consumption, while it does not affect intraoperative bleeding in lumbar spine surgery.

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
超声引导直立器脊柱平面阻滞对腰椎手术后疼痛的疗效评价:一项随机临床试验。
目的:腰椎手术后患者疼痛程度显著。本随机临床试验的主要目的是探讨竖脊肌平面阻滞(ESPB)对腰椎手术患者术后24小时疼痛评分的影响。同时评估阿片类药物累积用量和术中出血。方法:选择腰椎择期手术的成年患者随机分为病例组(ESPB)和对照组(无ESPB)。全麻诱导后,在超声引导下俯卧位进行阻滞。两组均采用相同的麻醉药物和麻醉技术。记录两组患者术后疼痛评分、需抢救镇痛(哌哌啶)患者人数、术后24 h抢救镇痛总需求量及术中出血量。比较疼痛评分变量在时间跨度上的差异,采用方差分析重复测量检验。结果:病例组疼痛评分在所有时间间隔内均显著低于对照组。病例组有8例(40%)患者需要抢救性镇痛,显著低于对照组(15例[75%])(p=0.025)。对照组用药总用量为57.50±45.95,病例组为22.50±32.34 (p=0.01),对照组高于对照组,差异有统计学意义。结论:ESPB可降低腰椎手术患者术后疼痛评分和阿片类药物消耗,但对术中出血无影响。
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
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
16.70%
发文量
22
期刊最新文献
Percutaneous fluoroscopic lumbar facet joint synovial cyst aspiration for manifesting with radiculopathy and low back pain. Evaluation of the efficacy of pulsed radiofrequency therapy in patients with lumbosacral radicular pain: An analysis of single-center data. The effectiveness of the erector spinae plane block using methylprednisolone and bupivacaine in post-herpetic neuralgia: Case series. The effect of consecutive facet medial branch radiofrequency denervation and dorsal root ganglion pulse radiofrequency therapy on lumbar facet joint pain. [Pain beliefs of cancer patients and associated factors].
×
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