Role of ultrasound-guided lumbar “Erector spinae plane block” and ultrasound-guided transmuscular “Quadratus lumborum block” for postoperative analgesia after hip surgeries: A randomized, controlled study

IF 0.2 Q4 ANESTHESIOLOGY Indian Anaesthetists Forum Pub Date : 2021-01-01 DOI:10.4103/TheIAForum.TheIAForum_90_20
P. Tiwari, R. Bhatia, V. Asthana, R. Maheshwari
{"title":"Role of ultrasound-guided lumbar “Erector spinae plane block” and ultrasound-guided transmuscular “Quadratus lumborum block” for postoperative analgesia after hip surgeries: A randomized, controlled study","authors":"P. Tiwari, R. Bhatia, V. Asthana, R. Maheshwari","doi":"10.4103/TheIAForum.TheIAForum_90_20","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background and Aims: Our aim was to assess the postoperative analgesia after ultrasound-guided transmuscular “Quadratus lumborum block” (QLB) and lumbar “Erector spinae plane block” (ESPB) in hip surgeries postoperatively. Design: Double-blinded, randomized prospective study. Materials and Methods: Sixty-three patients who underwent hip surgeries were divided into three groups, with 21 patients each. Each group was given spinal anesthesia using 30 ml of 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine. After the completion of the surgery, Group I patients were given ipsilateral transmuscular QLB and Group II patients were given ipsilateral lumbar ESPB. No block was given in Group III. In the postanesthesia care unit (PACU), pain was assessed using the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) scoring. The time of first analgesic requirement and the total postoperatively tramadol consumption in first 24 h was recorded. Results: No significant difference was seen between the three groups pertaining to patient's demographic data, type, and duration of surgery. Statistically significant lower NRS scores were present in QLB group and ESPB group than the control group in the first 24 h (P < 0.001). The total tramadol consumption was significantly more in the control group (346.67 ± 71.37) mg than QLB group (159.05 ± 39.74) mg and ESPB group (190.48 ± 33.83) mg with P < 0.001. Time duration of first analgesic requirement in PACU was 344.05 min, 267.86 min, and 105.24 min for QLB, ESPB, and control group, respectively. Conclusion: In conclusion, both QLB and ESPB provide good postoperative pain control in hip surgeries with QLB providing a better analgesic profile when compared to ESPB.","PeriodicalId":42359,"journal":{"name":"Indian Anaesthetists Forum","volume":"22 1","pages":"60 - 66"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indian Anaesthetists Forum","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/TheIAForum.TheIAForum_90_20","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Background and Aims: Our aim was to assess the postoperative analgesia after ultrasound-guided transmuscular “Quadratus lumborum block” (QLB) and lumbar “Erector spinae plane block” (ESPB) in hip surgeries postoperatively. Design: Double-blinded, randomized prospective study. Materials and Methods: Sixty-three patients who underwent hip surgeries were divided into three groups, with 21 patients each. Each group was given spinal anesthesia using 30 ml of 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine. After the completion of the surgery, Group I patients were given ipsilateral transmuscular QLB and Group II patients were given ipsilateral lumbar ESPB. No block was given in Group III. In the postanesthesia care unit (PACU), pain was assessed using the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) scoring. The time of first analgesic requirement and the total postoperatively tramadol consumption in first 24 h was recorded. Results: No significant difference was seen between the three groups pertaining to patient's demographic data, type, and duration of surgery. Statistically significant lower NRS scores were present in QLB group and ESPB group than the control group in the first 24 h (P < 0.001). The total tramadol consumption was significantly more in the control group (346.67 ± 71.37) mg than QLB group (159.05 ± 39.74) mg and ESPB group (190.48 ± 33.83) mg with P < 0.001. Time duration of first analgesic requirement in PACU was 344.05 min, 267.86 min, and 105.24 min for QLB, ESPB, and control group, respectively. Conclusion: In conclusion, both QLB and ESPB provide good postoperative pain control in hip surgeries with QLB providing a better analgesic profile when compared to ESPB.
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
超声引导腰椎“竖脊平面阻滞”和超声引导跨血管“腰方阻滞”在髋关节手术后镇痛中的作用:一项随机对照研究
背景和目的:我们的目的是评估超声引导下髋关节手术后经血管“腰四方阻滞”(QLB)和腰椎“竖脊平面阻滞”(ESPB)的术后镇痛效果。设计:双盲随机前瞻性研究。材料与方法:将63例髋关节手术患者分为三组,每组21例。每组使用30毫升0.5%高压布比卡因进行脊髓麻醉。手术完成后,第一组患者接受同侧透血管QLB治疗,第二组患者接受相同侧腰椎ESPB治疗。第三组未进行阻滞。在麻醉后监护室(PACU),使用数字评定量表(NRS)评分评估疼痛。记录首次镇痛需求的时间和术后24小时曲马多的总消耗量。结果:在患者的人口统计学数据、类型和手术持续时间方面,三组之间没有显著差异。在前24小时内,QLB组和ESPB组的NRS评分显著低于对照组(P<0.001)。对照组的曲马多总消耗量(346.67±71.37)mg显著高于QLB组(159.05±39.74)mg和ESPB小组(190.48±33.83)mg,P<0.001。QLB、ESPB和对照组在PACU中首次镇痛的持续时间分别为344.05分钟、267.86分钟和105.24分钟。结论:总之,QLB和ESPB在髋关节手术中都能很好地控制术后疼痛,与ESPB相比,QLB能提供更好的镇痛效果。
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
Indian Anaesthetists Forum
Indian Anaesthetists Forum ANESTHESIOLOGY-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
17
审稿时长
6 weeks
期刊最新文献
Cardiovascular complications in coronavirus disease-2019 patients Refractory hypokalemia in intensive care unit: Efforts in vain Evaluation of effect of dexamethasone and bicarbonate as adjuvants to intracuff lignocaine on endotracheal tube tolerance during emergence and incidence of postoperative cough and sore throat Is it popliteal artery? Is it popliteal vein? No it is persistent sciatic vein Mortality predictors during the third wave of COVID-19 pandemic: A multicentric retrospective analysis from tertiary care centers of Western India
×
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