Department of Anesthesiology and Reanimation, Faculty of Medicine, Hatay Mustafa Kemal University, Hatay, Turkey.
Department of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, Hatay Mustafa Kemal University, Hatay, Turkey.
Medicine (Baltimore). 2024 Jul 26;103(30):e39054. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000039054.
Our aim was to observe the effects of local infiltration analgesia (LIA) or erector spinae plane block (ESPB) methods, which we applied preemptively in patients who were scheduled for surgery with a lumbotomy surgical incision and on intraoperative remifentanil consumption, and to compare the postoperative numerical rating scale (NRS), morphine demand, consumption, and pain degrees.
Sixty American Society of Anesthesiologists I to III patients aged 18 to 75 years who were due to be operated on with a lumbotomy surgical incision were included in the study. The present study was conducted via prospective, randomized controlled, double-blind trials. After the induction of standard anesthesia, LIA was applied to 30 patients and ESPB was applied to 30 patients preemptively. The dose of remifentanil consumed in the intraoperative period was measured, and the hemodynamic parameters were measured every 5 minutes. Morphine bolus treatment with the postoperative patient-controlled analgesia and rescue analgesia with paracetamol were planned for the patients. Postoperative morphine and additional analgesia consumption, NRS, hemodynamic parameters, and complications were recorded for 48 hours.
There was no difference between the groups in terms of demographic and hemodynamic data. The mean consumption of remifentanil was measured as 455 ± 165.23 µg in the intraoperative ESPB group and 296.67 ± 110.59 µg in the LIA group, and a statistical difference was observed (P = .001). In the postoperative follow-ups, the ESPB group drug consumption and NRS score averages were significantly lower at all times (P = .01; patient-controlled analgesia-morphine, 41.93 ± 14.47 mg vs 57.23 ± 15.5 mg and additional analgesic-paracetamol: 2.1 ± 1.06 vs 4.27 ± 1.14 g). The mean duration of additional analgesic intake of the groups was 10.6 ± 8.1 in the LIA group, while it was 19.33 ± 8.87 in the ESPB group, a significant difference. The patient satisfaction questionnaire was also significantly in favor of ESPB (P = .05).
In conclusion, it has been shown that the intraoperative LIA method is more effective in terms of remifentanil consumption and in controlling pain in operations performed with a flank incision, but the ESPB method provides longer and more effective pain control in postoperative follow-ups.
我们的目的是观察局部浸润镇痛(LIA)或竖脊肌平面阻滞(ESPB)方法的效果,这些方法我们预先应用于计划进行腰椎切开手术的患者,并比较术中瑞芬太尼的消耗、术后数字评分量表(NRS)、吗啡需求、消耗和疼痛程度。
60 名年龄在 18 至 75 岁之间的美国麻醉师协会 I 至 III 级患者纳入本研究。本研究采用前瞻性、随机对照、双盲试验进行。在标准麻醉诱导后,LIA 组 30 例患者和 ESPB 组 30 例患者预先应用。测量术中消耗的瑞芬太尼剂量,并每 5 分钟测量一次血流动力学参数。计划对患者进行术后患者自控镇痛的吗啡冲击治疗和扑热息痛的解救镇痛。记录术后 48 小时内吗啡和其他镇痛药物的消耗、NRS、血流动力学参数和并发症。
两组患者的人口统计学和血流动力学数据无差异。ESPB 组术中瑞芬太尼的平均消耗量为 455±165.23µg,LIA 组为 296.67±110.59µg,差异有统计学意义(P=0.001)。在术后随访中,ESPB 组在所有时间点的药物消耗和 NRS 评分平均值均明显较低(P=0.01;患者自控镇痛-吗啡,41.93±14.47mg vs 57.23±15.5mg 和额外镇痛-扑热息痛:2.1±1.06 vs 4.27±1.14g)。LIA 组的平均额外镇痛摄入时间为 10.6±8.1 小时,而 ESPB 组为 19.33±8.87 小时,差异有统计学意义。患者满意度问卷也明显有利于 ESPB(P=0.05)。
总之,与 flank 切口手术相比,术中 LIA 方法在瑞芬太尼消耗和控制疼痛方面更有效,但在术后随访中,ESPB 方法提供了更长和更有效的疼痛控制。