4.6 Article

Erector Spinae Plane Block vs Quadratus Lumborum Block for pediatric lower abdominal surgery: A double blinded, prospective, and randomized trial

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ANESTHESIA
卷 57, 期 -, 页码 24-28

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2019.03.006

关键词

Erector Spinae Plane Block; Quadratus Lumborum Block; Pediatric surgery; Ultrasound; Postoperative pain

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Study objective: To evaluate and compare the analgesic effect of ultrasound-guided erector spinae plane (ESP) block with ultrasound-guided Quadratus Lumborum Block in pediatric lower abdominal surgeries. Design: Randomized, prospective, double-blinded trial. Setting: Operating room and surgical ward. Patients: Sixty patients, aged 1 to 7 years with ASA scores of I-II scheduled for elective lower abdominal surgery were included in the study. Interventions: Patients were randomized into two groups as ESPB group and QLB group. Ultrasound guided ESP block at L1 vertebral level was performed preoperatively using 0.5 ml/kg 0.25% bupivacaine (max 20 ml) to the patients in ESPB group. And ultrasound guided QLB block with transmuscular approach was performed pre-operatively using 0.5 ml/kg 0.25% bupivacaine (max 20 ml) to the patients in QLB group. Measurements: Face, Legs, Activity, Cry and Consolability (FLACC) scores for pain were recorded at 0, 1, 3 and 6 h postoperatively. Analgesic requirements and time to first analgesic requirement were also recorded. Main results: Fifty-seven patients were included in the final analyses. No significant difference was determined between the groups' FLACC scores at 0, 1, 3 or 6 h postoperatively (p > 0.05). No significant difference was also determined in times to first analgesia between the groups (p > 0. 05). Conclusions: This study shows that the ESPB provides similar postoperative analgesia to the QLB in pediatric patients undergoing lower abdominal surgery. Clinicians could decide according to their clinical experiences.

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

4.6
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