Continuous thoracic epidural versus continuous paravertebral analgesia in patients undergoing open renal surgery: Evaluation of pulmonary function; randomized double-blinded clinical trial

IF 0.6 Q3 ANESTHESIOLOGY Egyptian Journal of Anaesthesia Pub Date : 2023-08-18 DOI:10.1080/11101849.2023.2247246
S. Hassan, Khaled Abdelrahman, Ahmed M. Mandor, George Magdy, M. Galal, F. Askar, A. M. Thabet
{"title":"Continuous thoracic epidural versus continuous paravertebral analgesia in patients undergoing open renal surgery: Evaluation of pulmonary function; randomized double-blinded clinical trial","authors":"S. Hassan, Khaled Abdelrahman, Ahmed M. Mandor, George Magdy, M. Galal, F. Askar, A. M. Thabet","doi":"10.1080/11101849.2023.2247246","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Background This study aimed to assess pulmonary functions after either continuous thoracic paravertebral block (cTPVB) or thoracic epidural block (cTEB) in open renal surgeries. Methodsː The double-blinded, randomized clinical trial included 40 patients scheduled for open renal surgeries at Urology Hospital-Assiut University, equally assigned into group E (n = 20) and group P (n = 20), both at the level of 7th-8th thoracic vertebra. Initially, 7.5–12 mL of bupivacaine 0.25% was started before the induction of general anesthesia, followed by bupivacaine 0.125% continuously at a rate of 5–15 ml/h. Forced vital capacity (FVC) measured every  6 hours postoperatively within the first 24 hours was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes were peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR), forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1), diaphragmatic excursion (DE), postoperative analgesia, total opioid consumption, total local anesthetic dose, hemodynamics and complications. Resultsː FVC, FEV1 and DE were better preserved in cTPVB where the lowest postoperative readings as a fraction of preoperative control were 0.7 ± 0.11 vs 0.65 ± 0.11 L, 0.74 ± 0.11 vs 0.64 ± 0.10 L and 0.73 ± 0.1 vs 0.58 ± 0.1 cm, respectively. The lowest postoperative PEFR was reported in cTEB (p-value = 0.128). Analysis of numeric rating pain scale, total opioid consumption and time of first rescue analgesic request revealed a statistical nonsignificant difference. The total infused dose of local anesthetic was significantly higher in cTPVB group. Incidence of sympatholytic complications was higher in cTEB. Conclusion cTEB and cTPVB had convergent effect on respiratory function and diaphragmatic motility and equivalent analgesic efficacy after open renal surgeries. Although cTPVB was technically easier and less time-consuming than cTEB, higher dose of local anaesthetic was required in cTPVB.","PeriodicalId":11437,"journal":{"name":"Egyptian Journal of Anaesthesia","volume":"176 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Egyptian Journal of Anaesthesia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/11101849.2023.2247246","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: 0

Abstract

ABSTRACT Background This study aimed to assess pulmonary functions after either continuous thoracic paravertebral block (cTPVB) or thoracic epidural block (cTEB) in open renal surgeries. Methodsː The double-blinded, randomized clinical trial included 40 patients scheduled for open renal surgeries at Urology Hospital-Assiut University, equally assigned into group E (n = 20) and group P (n = 20), both at the level of 7th-8th thoracic vertebra. Initially, 7.5–12 mL of bupivacaine 0.25% was started before the induction of general anesthesia, followed by bupivacaine 0.125% continuously at a rate of 5–15 ml/h. Forced vital capacity (FVC) measured every  6 hours postoperatively within the first 24 hours was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes were peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR), forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1), diaphragmatic excursion (DE), postoperative analgesia, total opioid consumption, total local anesthetic dose, hemodynamics and complications. Resultsː FVC, FEV1 and DE were better preserved in cTPVB where the lowest postoperative readings as a fraction of preoperative control were 0.7 ± 0.11 vs 0.65 ± 0.11 L, 0.74 ± 0.11 vs 0.64 ± 0.10 L and 0.73 ± 0.1 vs 0.58 ± 0.1 cm, respectively. The lowest postoperative PEFR was reported in cTEB (p-value = 0.128). Analysis of numeric rating pain scale, total opioid consumption and time of first rescue analgesic request revealed a statistical nonsignificant difference. The total infused dose of local anesthetic was significantly higher in cTPVB group. Incidence of sympatholytic complications was higher in cTEB. Conclusion cTEB and cTPVB had convergent effect on respiratory function and diaphragmatic motility and equivalent analgesic efficacy after open renal surgeries. Although cTPVB was technically easier and less time-consuming than cTEB, higher dose of local anaesthetic was required in cTPVB.
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
开放性肾手术患者连续胸椎硬膜外镇痛与连续椎旁镇痛:肺功能的评价随机双盲临床试验
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: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