超声引导竖脊肌平面阻滞(ESPB)与静脉注射阿片类药物用于肋骨骨折患者镇痛的比较

IF 0.6 Q3 ANESTHESIOLOGY Egyptian Journal of Anaesthesia Pub Date : 2023-03-15 DOI:10.1080/11101849.2023.2188729
Soha Elmansy, Mohammed Abdelkhalek, Sherif Farouk, R. Shoukry, A. Khames
{"title":"超声引导竖脊肌平面阻滞(ESPB)与静脉注射阿片类药物用于肋骨骨折患者镇痛的比较","authors":"Soha Elmansy, Mohammed Abdelkhalek, Sherif Farouk, R. Shoukry, A. Khames","doi":"10.1080/11101849.2023.2188729","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Background There has been a great interest in the erector spinae plane block (ESPB) to control pain in patients who are presented with rib fractures. ESPB has been shown to achieve adequate analgesia with little adverse effects, although its effectiveness in comparison to other analgesic alternatives has not been sufficiently studied. Aim of the study Our target was to compare the effectiveness of ESPB and opioid based analgesia in relieving pain in rib fractures patients. Methodology Fifty-two patients between 21 and 60 years old, divided into 2 equal groups, received either Ultrasound-guided (US) ESPB with 20 ml of bupivacaine 0.25% or intravenous (IV) morphine 0.1 mg/kg then IV Patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) containing morphine. Assessment of visual analogue scale (VAS) score before and after spirometer exercise at baseline, then at 30 minutes, 6 hours, and 12 hours after the intervention was done. Also Peak Inspiratory Flow Rate (PIFR) was measured by an incentive spirometer, first 12-hour morphine consumption as rescue analgesia was calculated, the incidence of complications was noted, and patients satisfaction was assessed. Results The VAS score was higher in morphine group compared to ESPB group before and after spirometry. PIFR was higher in ESPB group. Less opioid consumption and side effects, along with better patient satisfaction, were recorded in the ESPB group. Conclusion Erector spinae plane block provided superior analgesia and improved respiratory function for IV PCA morphine. Furthermore, ESPB was linked to fewer side effects, less opioid use, and better patient satisfaction.","PeriodicalId":11437,"journal":{"name":"Egyptian Journal of Anaesthesia","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ultrasound -guided erector spinae plane block (ESPB) versus intravenous opioids based analgesia in patients with rib fractures\",\"authors\":\"Soha Elmansy, Mohammed Abdelkhalek, Sherif Farouk, R. Shoukry, A. Khames\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/11101849.2023.2188729\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Background There has been a great interest in the erector spinae plane block (ESPB) to control pain in patients who are presented with rib fractures. ESPB has been shown to achieve adequate analgesia with little adverse effects, although its effectiveness in comparison to other analgesic alternatives has not been sufficiently studied. Aim of the study Our target was to compare the effectiveness of ESPB and opioid based analgesia in relieving pain in rib fractures patients. Methodology Fifty-two patients between 21 and 60 years old, divided into 2 equal groups, received either Ultrasound-guided (US) ESPB with 20 ml of bupivacaine 0.25% or intravenous (IV) morphine 0.1 mg/kg then IV Patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) containing morphine. Assessment of visual analogue scale (VAS) score before and after spirometer exercise at baseline, then at 30 minutes, 6 hours, and 12 hours after the intervention was done. Also Peak Inspiratory Flow Rate (PIFR) was measured by an incentive spirometer, first 12-hour morphine consumption as rescue analgesia was calculated, the incidence of complications was noted, and patients satisfaction was assessed. Results The VAS score was higher in morphine group compared to ESPB group before and after spirometry. PIFR was higher in ESPB group. Less opioid consumption and side effects, along with better patient satisfaction, were recorded in the ESPB group. Conclusion Erector spinae plane block provided superior analgesia and improved respiratory function for IV PCA morphine. Furthermore, ESPB was linked to fewer side effects, less opioid use, and better patient satisfaction.\",\"PeriodicalId\":11437,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Egyptian Journal of Anaesthesia\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-15\",\"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/10.1080/11101849.2023.2188729\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ANESTHESIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Egyptian Journal of Anaesthesia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/11101849.2023.2188729","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
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
Ultrasound -guided erector spinae plane block (ESPB) versus intravenous opioids based analgesia in patients with rib fractures
ABSTRACT Background There has been a great interest in the erector spinae plane block (ESPB) to control pain in patients who are presented with rib fractures. ESPB has been shown to achieve adequate analgesia with little adverse effects, although its effectiveness in comparison to other analgesic alternatives has not been sufficiently studied. Aim of the study Our target was to compare the effectiveness of ESPB and opioid based analgesia in relieving pain in rib fractures patients. Methodology Fifty-two patients between 21 and 60 years old, divided into 2 equal groups, received either Ultrasound-guided (US) ESPB with 20 ml of bupivacaine 0.25% or intravenous (IV) morphine 0.1 mg/kg then IV Patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) containing morphine. Assessment of visual analogue scale (VAS) score before and after spirometer exercise at baseline, then at 30 minutes, 6 hours, and 12 hours after the intervention was done. Also Peak Inspiratory Flow Rate (PIFR) was measured by an incentive spirometer, first 12-hour morphine consumption as rescue analgesia was calculated, the incidence of complications was noted, and patients satisfaction was assessed. Results The VAS score was higher in morphine group compared to ESPB group before and after spirometry. PIFR was higher in ESPB group. Less opioid consumption and side effects, along with better patient satisfaction, were recorded in the ESPB group. Conclusion Erector spinae plane block provided superior analgesia and improved respiratory function for IV PCA morphine. Furthermore, ESPB was linked to fewer side effects, less opioid use, and better patient satisfaction.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 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