Suppr超能文献

外科医生引导下的荧光透视竖脊肌平面阻滞(ESPB)与麻醉医生引导下的超声引导ESPB用于腰椎融合手术围手术期镇痛的前瞻性随机对照研究。

Surgeon-Guided Fluoroscopic Erector Spinae Plane Block (ESPB) versus Anesthetist-Guided Ultrasonic ESPB for Perioperative Analgesia in Lumbar Fusion Surgery- a Prospective Randomized Control Study.

作者信息

G Gnanaprakash, Mugesh Kanna Rishi, Subramanian J Balavenkat, Chelliah Sekar, Shetty Ajoy Prasad, Rajasekaran S

机构信息

Department of Spine Surgery, Ganga Hospital, Coimbatore, India.

Department of Anesthesia, Ganga Hospital, Coimbatore, India.

出版信息

Global Spine J. 2025 Mar 29:21925682251333407. doi: 10.1177/21925682251333407.

Abstract

Study designProspective, randomized control study.ObjectiveTo assess the safety and efficacy of fluoroscopy-guided vs ultrasound-guided Erector Spinae Plane Block (ESPB) for perioperative analgesia in lumbar fusion surgery.Materials and Methods66 patients requiring single-level lumbar fusion were randomized into 2 groups. One group had fluoroscopy-guided ESPB by the surgeon (Fluoro-ESPB group) and the other group had Ultrasound-guided ESPB by the anesthetist (USG-ESPB). Demographic details, intraoperative parameters (perioperative total opioid consumption, muscle relaxants used, heart rate, blood pressure), and postoperative parameters (VAS score, alertness, satisfaction score) were recorded and analyzed.ResultsDuring the initial 48 hours following the surgery, both groups provided good perioperative analgesia, and reported very low and comparable postoperative pain scores (VAS scale). The mean VAS score was 2.7 ± 0.5 in the Fluoro-ESPB group and 2.7 ± 0.5 in the USG-ESPB group ( = 0.91). The average time taken to deliver the block in the Fluoro-ESPB group (3.01 ± 0.97 mins) was significantly less than in the USG-ESPB group (4.74 ± 1.49 mins) ( = 0.00). The total perioperative opioid consumption (TOC), total intraoperative muscle relaxant consumption, and intraoperative blood loss were similar in both groups (Fluoro- ESPB, USG ESPB) ( > 0.05). The postoperative MOASS score was consistently high across both groups. The satisfaction scores were high and comparable ( = 0.403).ConclusionThe fluoroscopy-guided ESPB is a safe and effective alternative to the traditional ultrasound-guided technique. It can be performed by the surgeon, reducing overall procedure time, and improving workflow.

摘要

研究设计

前瞻性随机对照研究。

目的

评估在腰椎融合手术中,透视引导与超声引导竖脊肌平面阻滞(ESPB)用于围手术期镇痛的安全性和有效性。

材料与方法

66例需要进行单节段腰椎融合手术的患者被随机分为两组。一组由外科医生进行透视引导的ESPB(透视引导ESPB组),另一组由麻醉医生进行超声引导的ESPB(超声引导ESPB组)。记录并分析人口统计学细节、术中参数(围手术期总阿片类药物消耗量、使用的肌肉松弛剂、心率、血压)和术后参数(视觉模拟评分法[VAS]评分、警觉性、满意度评分)。

结果

在手术后的最初48小时内,两组均提供了良好的围手术期镇痛效果,且术后疼痛评分(VAS量表)非常低且相当。透视引导ESPB组的平均VAS评分为2.7±0.5,超声引导ESPB组为2.7±0.5(P = 0.91)。透视引导ESPB组实施阻滞的平均时间(3.01±0.97分钟)明显短于超声引导ESPB组(4.74±1.49分钟)(P = 0.00)。两组(透视引导ESPB组、超声引导ESPB组)的围手术期总阿片类药物消耗量(TOC)、术中肌肉松弛剂总消耗量和术中失血量相似(P>0.05)。两组术后改良骨科阿片类药物评分系统(MOASS)评分一直较高。满意度评分较高且相当(P = 0.403)。

结论

透视引导的ESPB是传统超声引导技术的一种安全有效的替代方法。它可由外科医生实施,减少了总体手术时间,并改善了工作流程。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/2051/11955968/2eabfc94f44a/10.1177_21925682251333407-fig1.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验