4.0 Article

Serratus plane block for video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery major lung resection: a randomized controlled trial

期刊

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/icvts/ivz289

关键词

Enhanced recovery after surgery; Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery lobectomy; Serratus plane block

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of 2 different analgesic approaches on pain, postoperative rehabilitation exercises and rescue analgesics of 2 groups of patients undergoing video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) major lung resection for cancer. METHODS: A total of 94 patients undergoing a VATS major lung resection were randomly allocated to 2 groups: the control group received intravenous and oral (i.e. systemic) analgesics while the intervention group received systemic analgesics plus pre-emptive serratus plane block. Pain perception was recorded until drainage removal or until 2 p.m. of postoperative day (POD) 3. In particular, the primary end point was defined as the peak pain perception on POD 1 (in the time frame between 6 a.m. and 2 p.m.). Secondary end points were the number of forced inspiration manoeuvers during rehabilitative incentive spirometry on POD 1 and 2 and the overall number of rescue analgesics requested by patients. RESULTS: Serratus plane block provided a better pain control between 6 a.m. and 2 p.m. of POD 1 (Numeric Rating Scale 1.7 vs 3.5; P < 0.001). Patients in the intervention group performed more forced inspiration manoeuvers at a mean higher volume during incentive spirometry (8.9 vs 7, P < 0.001, and 1010 vs 865 ml, P = 0.02). They required fewer rescue doses of analgesics (0.57 vs 1.1; P = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: Serratus plane block provided a better pain control, entailing a better performance during postoperative rehabilitation exercises in terms of duration and quality of incentive spirometry. It diminished the patient's need for rescue analgesics during the early postoperative period.

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

4.0
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