4.2 Article

Ultrasound-Guided Serratus Plane Block Versus Erector Spinae Block for Postoperative Analgesia After Video-Assisted Thoracoscopy: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial

期刊

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1053/j.jvca.2019.02.028

关键词

video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery; interfascial nerve blocks; comparative study

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: There is no gold standard for the management of postoperative pain after video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS). Interfascial nerve blocks were proposed as simple and effective options. Design: The present pilot randomized trial aimed to compare the perioperative analgesic effect of ultrasound-guided erector spinae plane block (ESB) with serratus plane block (SPB) in patients undergoing VATS. Setting: University hospitals. Participants: Sixty adult patients scheduled to undergo VATS were enrolled in the study. Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either single-shot ultrasound-guided ESB or SPB. Measurements and Main Results: The primary outcomes were pain severity, time to first postoperative analgesia, and intraoperative and postoperative analgesic requirements. Data analysis was performed with MedCalc, Version 15.8 (MedCalc, Ostend, Belgium. The ESB group showed a significantly lower VAS(static) score than the SPB group from the 4th hour (p = 0.04) to the 6th hour postoperatively (p = 0.002), and the VAS(dynamic) score was significantly lower in ESB group than the SPB group because the patients were alert (p < 0.001); this trend was consistent until the 20th hour postoperatively. Similarly, the time for first required analgesic was significantly longer in the ESB group (p < 0.001). The mean arterial pressure was significantly higher in the SPB group than in the ESB group 12 hours postoperatively (p < 0.001). No major side effects were observed in either of the study groups. Conclusion: ESB provided superior analgesia and longer time to first required analgesic than did SPB. (C) 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据