Comparison between serratus anterior plane block versus erector spinae plane block for postoperative analgesia after video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS)

IF 0.5 Q3 ANESTHESIOLOGY Egyptian Journal of Anaesthesia Pub Date : 2023-05-24 DOI:10.1080/11101849.2023.2216534
Sameh Salem Hafny Taha, Beshoy Eshak Aziz Hanna, Gamal M. Elewa, Hadil Magdy Abd Elhamid Mohamed, Dalia Fahmy Emam Ali, Mohamed MoienMohamed Elsaid
{"title":"Comparison between serratus anterior plane block versus erector spinae plane block for postoperative analgesia after video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS)","authors":"Sameh Salem Hafny Taha, Beshoy Eshak Aziz Hanna, Gamal M. Elewa, Hadil Magdy Abd Elhamid Mohamed, Dalia Fahmy Emam Ali, Mohamed MoienMohamed Elsaid","doi":"10.1080/11101849.2023.2216534","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Background Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery is a minimally invasive technique resulting in decrease levels of pain. However, to provide more effective pain control after VATS, this necessitates analgesia that inhibits somatic and visceral nerve fibers. Aim of the study Aim of the study is to compare SAPB or ESPB for postoperative analgesia following VATS, as determined by the time until the first analgesic requirement. Comparisons of adverse effects and total analgesic requirement in the first 24-hour post-operative were the secondary endpoints. Patients and Methods Forty patients participated in this prospective randomized clinical study. At the conclusion of surgery, 20 patients underwent a single-injection US-guided ESPB, and 20 patients underwent a SAPB after VATS. Inclusion Criteria: (ASA) 1–3. Exclusion criteria: Patients <20 or >80 years old, patients who refuse to take part in the research, patients have a history of medication allergies, contraindication to regional anesthesia, severe hepatic and renal dysfunction Results As regarding to demographic information, there were no significant changes between the two groups. Timing of the first analgesic requirement was statistically faster among SAPB Group (12.54 ± 6.46 h) compared to ESPB Group (18.29 ± 6.05 h). Postoperative pethidine required was significantly higher in SAPB group than in ESBP group [ESPB (35.71 ± 19.67 mg) < SAPB (63.08 ± 25.29 mg), with p-value <0.05. No remarkable side effects were found in the two groups. Conclusion Both ESPB and SAPB can be used for pain control after VATS. Our study showed that US-directed ESPB offers more effective pain management than SAPB.","PeriodicalId":11437,"journal":{"name":"Egyptian Journal of Anaesthesia","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Egyptian Journal of Anaesthesia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/11101849.2023.2216534","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

ABSTRACT Background Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery is a minimally invasive technique resulting in decrease levels of pain. However, to provide more effective pain control after VATS, this necessitates analgesia that inhibits somatic and visceral nerve fibers. Aim of the study Aim of the study is to compare SAPB or ESPB for postoperative analgesia following VATS, as determined by the time until the first analgesic requirement. Comparisons of adverse effects and total analgesic requirement in the first 24-hour post-operative were the secondary endpoints. Patients and Methods Forty patients participated in this prospective randomized clinical study. At the conclusion of surgery, 20 patients underwent a single-injection US-guided ESPB, and 20 patients underwent a SAPB after VATS. Inclusion Criteria: (ASA) 1–3. Exclusion criteria: Patients <20 or >80 years old, patients who refuse to take part in the research, patients have a history of medication allergies, contraindication to regional anesthesia, severe hepatic and renal dysfunction Results As regarding to demographic information, there were no significant changes between the two groups. Timing of the first analgesic requirement was statistically faster among SAPB Group (12.54 ± 6.46 h) compared to ESPB Group (18.29 ± 6.05 h). Postoperative pethidine required was significantly higher in SAPB group than in ESBP group [ESPB (35.71 ± 19.67 mg) < SAPB (63.08 ± 25.29 mg), with p-value <0.05. No remarkable side effects were found in the two groups. Conclusion Both ESPB and SAPB can be used for pain control after VATS. Our study showed that US-directed ESPB offers more effective pain management than SAPB.
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
电视胸腔镜手术后前锯肌平面阻滞与竖脊肌平面阻滞镇痛效果的比较
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
Egyptian Journal of Anaesthesia
Egyptian Journal of Anaesthesia Medicine-Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
78
期刊最新文献
Intrathecal levo-bupivacaine versus hyperbaric bupivacaine for inguinal hernia repairs in ex-preterm infants: A double blinded randomized prospective study Comparison of two different methods as reliable predictors of successful caudal block in children Effect of sevoflurane versus propofol on early cognitive functions in elderly patients after lumbar disc surgery Muscle wasting assessed by ultrasound versus scoring systems as early predictor of outcomes of intensive care unit stay in critically ill patients Posterior quadratus lumborum versus caudal epidural block for perioperative analgesia in pediatric patients undergoing upper abdominal surgeries: Arandomized, double-blind trial
×
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