Kaçmaz Mustafa, Bolat Hacı, Erdoğan Alirıza
Department of Anesthesiology, Faculty of Medicine, Ömer Halisdemir University, Niğde, Turkey.
Department of General Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Ömer Halisdemir University, Niğde, Turkey.
J Minim Access Surg. 2024 Apr 1;20(2):154-162. doi: 10.4103/jmas.jmas_367_22. Epub 2023 Jul 5.
The objective of our study was to compare erector spinae plane block (ESP) with spinal anaesthesia (SA) for inguinal hernia repair with respect to anaesthetic efficacy, post-operative analgesia, mobilisation, discharge, complication and side effects.
The study included 52 patients over 50 years of age, with the American Society of Anaesthesia physical status Class I-III. Group ESP ( n = 26) was applied 30 ml of mixed local anaesthetic mixture applied at the L1 level to the plane of the erector spinae and 10 ml of tumescent when necessary, while Group SA ( n = 26) was applied 3 ml of 0.5% bupivacaine at the L3-L4/L2-L3 level.
Intraoperative Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) value was lower in Group S, whereas the 6 th -h VAS value was lower in Group ESP ( P < 0.05). There was no significant difference between the VAS values at hour 12 and 24 ( P > 0.05). Reaching post-anaesthesia discharge criteria 9 and time to mobilisation and oral feeding was shorter in Group ESP, whereas post-procedure waiting time was shorter in Group S ( P < 0.05). While the need for post-operative analgesics was higher in Group S ( P < 0.05), there was a high level of patient satisfaction in Group ESP ( P = 0.05). Intraoperative midazolam requirement was lower in Group S, post-operative diclofenac requirement was lower in Group ESP ( P < 0.05), post-operative urinary retention and tremor were higher in Group S ( P = 0.05).
ESP block provides adequate surgical anaesthesia compared to SA (non-inferiority) for inguinal hernia repair. It is associated with less analgesic requirement, low post-operative pain, less complication rate and high patient satisfaction in the post-operative period.
我们研究的目的是比较竖脊肌平面阻滞(ESP)与脊髓麻醉(SA)用于腹股沟疝修补术时在麻醉效果、术后镇痛、活动能力、出院情况、并发症及副作用方面的差异。
本研究纳入了52例年龄超过50岁、美国麻醉医师协会身体状况分级为I - III级的患者。ESP组(n = 26)在L1水平于竖脊肌平面注射30 ml混合局部麻醉剂,并在必要时注射10 ml肿胀液,而SA组(n = 26)在L3 - L4/L2 - L3水平注射3 ml 0.5%布比卡因。
术中视觉模拟评分(VAS)值S组较低,而术后第6小时VAS值ESP组较低(P < 0.05)。12小时和24小时时VAS值之间无显著差异(P > 0.05)。ESP组达到麻醉后出院标准9以及活动和经口进食时间较短,而S组术后等待时间较短(P < 0.05)。S组术后镇痛药物需求较高(P < 0.05),而ESP组患者满意度较高(P = 0.05)。S组术中咪达唑仑需求量较低,ESP组术后双氯芬酸需求量较低(P < 0.05),S组术后尿潴留和震颤发生率较高(P = 0.05)。
对于腹股沟疝修补术,与SA相比,ESP阻滞提供了足够的手术麻醉(非劣效性)。它与较少的镇痛需求、较低的术后疼痛、较低的并发症发生率以及较高的术后患者满意度相关。