Comparison Between Relative Efficacy of Erector Spinae Plane Block and Caudal Epidural Block for Postoperative Analgesia in Lumbar Fusion Surgery- A Prospective Randomized Controlled Study.

IF 3 3区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Global Spine Journal Pub Date : 2025-03-01 Epub Date: 2023-09-22 DOI:10.1177/21925682231203653
Yogin Patel, Karthik Ramachandran, Ajoy Prasad Shetty, Sekar Chelliah, Balavenkat Subramanian, Rishi Mugesh Kanna, Rajasekaran Shanmuganathan
{"title":"Comparison Between Relative Efficacy of Erector Spinae Plane Block and Caudal Epidural Block for Postoperative Analgesia in Lumbar Fusion Surgery- A Prospective Randomized Controlled Study.","authors":"Yogin Patel, Karthik Ramachandran, Ajoy Prasad Shetty, Sekar Chelliah, Balavenkat Subramanian, Rishi Mugesh Kanna, Rajasekaran Shanmuganathan","doi":"10.1177/21925682231203653","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Study design: </strong>Prospective, randomized controlled double-blinded study.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the relative efficacy of ultrasound-guided ESPB and CEB for postoperative analgesia after a single-level lumbar fusion surgery and compared it with conventional multimodal analgesia.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>81 patients requiring single-level lumbar fusion surgery were randomly allocated into 3 groups (ESPB group, CEB group, and the control group). Demographic and surgical data (blood loss, duration of surgery, perioperative total opioid consumption, muscle relaxants used) were assessed. Postoperatively, the surgical site pain, alertness scale, satisfaction score, time to mobilization, and complications were recorded.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The total opioid consumption in the first 24 hours was significantly lower in both the block groups than in the control group (103.70 ± 13.34 vs 105 ± 16.01 vs 142.59 ± 40.91mcg; <i>P</i> < .001). The total muscle relaxant consumption was also significantly less in block groups compared to controls (50.93 ± 1.98 vs 52.04 ± 3.47 vs 55.00 ± 5.29 mg; <i>P</i> < .001). The intraoperative blood loss was significantly less in both the block group (327.78 ± 40.03 mL, 380.74 ± 77.80 mL) than the control group (498.89 ± 71.22 mL) (<i>P</i> < .001). Among the block groups, the immediate postoperative pain relief was better in the CEB group, however, the ESPB group had a longer duration of postoperative pain relief.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Both ESPB and CEB produce adequate postoperative analgesia after lumbar fusion however the duration of action was significantly longer in the ESPB group with relatively shorter surgical time and lesser blood loss compared to the CEB group.</p>","PeriodicalId":12680,"journal":{"name":"Global Spine Journal","volume":" ","pages":"639-647"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11877558/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Spine Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/21925682231203653","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/9/22 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Study design: Prospective, randomized controlled double-blinded study.

Objective: To compare the relative efficacy of ultrasound-guided ESPB and CEB for postoperative analgesia after a single-level lumbar fusion surgery and compared it with conventional multimodal analgesia.

Methods: 81 patients requiring single-level lumbar fusion surgery were randomly allocated into 3 groups (ESPB group, CEB group, and the control group). Demographic and surgical data (blood loss, duration of surgery, perioperative total opioid consumption, muscle relaxants used) were assessed. Postoperatively, the surgical site pain, alertness scale, satisfaction score, time to mobilization, and complications were recorded.

Results: The total opioid consumption in the first 24 hours was significantly lower in both the block groups than in the control group (103.70 ± 13.34 vs 105 ± 16.01 vs 142.59 ± 40.91mcg; P < .001). The total muscle relaxant consumption was also significantly less in block groups compared to controls (50.93 ± 1.98 vs 52.04 ± 3.47 vs 55.00 ± 5.29 mg; P < .001). The intraoperative blood loss was significantly less in both the block group (327.78 ± 40.03 mL, 380.74 ± 77.80 mL) than the control group (498.89 ± 71.22 mL) (P < .001). Among the block groups, the immediate postoperative pain relief was better in the CEB group, however, the ESPB group had a longer duration of postoperative pain relief.

Conclusion: Both ESPB and CEB produce adequate postoperative analgesia after lumbar fusion however the duration of action was significantly longer in the ESPB group with relatively shorter surgical time and lesser blood loss compared to the CEB group.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

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
腰椎融合术中直立棘平面阻滞和硬膜外阻滞术后镇痛的相对疗效比较——一项前瞻性随机对照研究。
研究设计:前瞻性、随机对照双盲研究。目的:比较超声引导下ESPB和CEB用于单节段腰椎融合术后术后镇痛的相对疗效,并与传统多模式镇痛进行比较。方法:将81例需要单级腰椎融合术的患者随机分为3组(ESPB组、CEB组和对照组)。评估人口统计学和手术数据(失血量、手术持续时间、围手术期阿片类药物总消耗量、使用的肌肉松弛剂)。术后,记录手术部位疼痛、警觉性量表、满意度评分、动员时间和并发症。结果:两个阻断组在前24小时内的阿片类药物总消耗量均显著低于对照组(103.70±13.34 vs 105±16.01 vs 142.59±40.91mcg;P<.001)。与对照组相比,阻断组的肌肉松弛剂总消耗量也显著减少(50.93±1.98 vs 52.04±3.47 vs 55.00±5.29mg;P<.001)阻滞组(327.78±40.03 mL,380.74±77.80 mL)明显少于对照组(498.89±71.22 mL)(P<0.001)。在阻滞组中,CEB组的术后即刻疼痛缓解效果更好,但ESPB组术后疼痛缓解持续时间更长。结论:ESPB和CEB在腰椎融合术后都能产生足够的术后镇痛,但与CEB组相比,ESPB组的作用时间明显更长,手术时间相对更短,出血量更少。
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
Global Spine Journal
Global Spine Journal Medicine-Surgery
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
8.30%
发文量
278
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊介绍: Global Spine Journal (GSJ) is the official scientific publication of AOSpine. A peer-reviewed, open access journal, devoted to the study and treatment of spinal disorders, including diagnosis, operative and non-operative treatment options, surgical techniques, and emerging research and clinical developments.GSJ is indexed in PubMedCentral, SCOPUS, and Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI).
期刊最新文献
Updating Prognostic Assessment for Spinal Metastases With a Combined Model of the Spinal Instability Neoplastic Score and the New Katagiri Score. Prone Transpsoas Fusion for Grade I - II Symptomatic Degenerative Spondylolisthesis - Prospective Cohort Study of 108 Patients. Scoliosis School Screening Using Electronic Devices in Henan Province, China: An Exploratory Study. Differential Impact of Depression and Psychotic Disorders on Complications, Costs, and Discharge After Single-Level Lumbar Fusion. Comparing Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Discectomy Versus Microdiscectomy for Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
×
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