Patel Yogin, Ramachandran Karthik, Shetty Ajoy Prasad, Chelliah Sekar, Subramanian Balavenkat, Kanna Rishi Mugesh, Shanmuganathan Rajasekaran
Department of Spine Surgery, Ganga Medical Centre and Hospitals Pvt. Ltd., Coimbatore, India.
Department of Anesthesia, Ganga Medical Centre and Hospitals Pvt. Ltd., Coimbatore, India.
Global Spine J. 2025 Mar;15(2):639-647. doi: 10.1177/21925682231203653. Epub 2023 Sep 22.
Prospective, randomized controlled double-blinded study.
To compare the relative efficacy of ultrasound-guided ESPB and CEB for postoperative analgesia after a single-level lumbar fusion surgery and compared it with conventional multimodal analgesia.
81 patients requiring single-level lumbar fusion surgery were randomly allocated into 3 groups (ESPB group, CEB group, and the control group). Demographic and surgical data (blood loss, duration of surgery, perioperative total opioid consumption, muscle relaxants used) were assessed. Postoperatively, the surgical site pain, alertness scale, satisfaction score, time to mobilization, and complications were recorded.
The total opioid consumption in the first 24 hours was significantly lower in both the block groups than in the control group (103.70 ± 13.34 vs 105 ± 16.01 vs 142.59 ± 40.91mcg; < .001). The total muscle relaxant consumption was also significantly less in block groups compared to controls (50.93 ± 1.98 vs 52.04 ± 3.47 vs 55.00 ± 5.29 mg; < .001). The intraoperative blood loss was significantly less in both the block group (327.78 ± 40.03 mL, 380.74 ± 77.80 mL) than the control group (498.89 ± 71.22 mL) ( < .001). Among the block groups, the immediate postoperative pain relief was better in the CEB group, however, the ESPB group had a longer duration of postoperative pain relief.
Both ESPB and CEB produce adequate postoperative analgesia after lumbar fusion however the duration of action was significantly longer in the ESPB group with relatively shorter surgical time and lesser blood loss compared to the CEB group.
前瞻性、随机对照双盲研究。
比较超声引导下腰方肌阻滞(ESPB)和竖脊肌阻滞(CEB)用于单节段腰椎融合术后镇痛的相对疗效,并与传统多模式镇痛进行比较。
81例需要进行单节段腰椎融合手术的患者被随机分为3组(ESPB组、CEB组和对照组)。评估人口统计学和手术数据(失血量、手术时间、围手术期总阿片类药物消耗量、使用的肌肉松弛剂)。术后,记录手术部位疼痛、警觉量表、满意度评分、活动时间和并发症。
两组阻滞组术后24小时内的总阿片类药物消耗量均显著低于对照组(103.70±13.34 vs 105±16.01 vs 142.59±40.91微克;P<0.001)。与对照组相比,阻滞组的总肌肉松弛剂消耗量也显著减少(50.93±1.98 vs 52.04±3.47 vs 55.00±5.29毫克;P<0.001)。两组阻滞组的术中失血量均显著低于对照组(327.78±40.03毫升,380.74±77.80毫升)(498.89±71.22毫升)(P<0.001)。在阻滞组中,CEB组术后即刻疼痛缓解更好,然而,ESPB组术后疼痛缓解持续时间更长。
ESPB和CEB在腰椎融合术后均能产生充分的术后镇痛效果,但ESPB组的作用持续时间明显更长,与CEB组相比,手术时间相对较短,失血量较少。