SummarySurgery is the primary therapeutic intervention for breast cancer and can result in significant postoperative pain. We searched the current literature and performed a meta‐analysis in order to compare the analgesic efficacy of the pectoral type‐2 (Pecs II) block with systemic analgesia alone and with a thoracic paravertebral block for breast cancer surgery. Primary outcome was postoperative opioid consumption in the first 24 h after surgery. Secondary outcomes were pain scores at 0, 3, 6, 9 and 24 h after surgery, intra‐operative opioid consumption, time to first analgesic request and incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting. We identified 13 randomised controlled trials that included 815 patients. The Pecs II block significantly reduced postoperative opioid consumption (standardised difference in means: −13.64 mg oral morphine equivalents; 95%CI: −21.22 to −6.05; p < 0.01) and acute postoperative pain at all intervals in the first 24 h after surgery compared with systemic analgesia alone. Compared with the thoracic paravertebral block, the Pecs II block resulted in similar postoperative opioid consumption (standardised difference in means: −8.73 mg oral morphine equivalents; 95%CI: −18.16 to 0.69; p = 0.07) and postoperative pain scores after first measurement. In conclusion, the Pecs II block offers improved analgesic efficacy compared with systemic analgesia alone and comparable analgesic efficacy to a thoracic paravertebral block for breast cancer surgery.

No abstract

Summary Serratus anterior plane and pectoral nerves blocks are recently described alternatives to established regional anaesthesia techniques in cardiac surgery, thoracic surgery and trauma. We performed a systematic review to establish the current state of evidence for the analgesic role of these fascial plane blocks in these clinical settings. We identified relevant studies by searching multiple databases and trial registries from inception to June 2019. Study heterogeneity prevented meta‐analysis and studies were instead qualitatively summarised and stratified by type of surgery and comparator. We identified 51 studies: nine randomised control trials; 13 cohort studies; 19 case series; and 10 case reports. The majority of randomised controlled trials studied the serratus anterior plane block in thoracotomy or video‐assisted thoracoscopic surgery, with only two investigating pectoral nerves blocks. The evidence in thoracic trauma comprised only case series and reports. Results indicate that single‐injection serratus anterior plane and the pectoral nerves blocks reduce pain scores and opioid consumption compared with systemic analgesia alone in cardiothoracic surgery, cardiac‐related interventional procedures and chest trauma for approximately 6–12 h. The duration of action appears longer than intercostal nerve blocks but may be shorter than thoracic paravertebral blockade. Block duration may be prolonged by a continuous catheter technique with potentially similar results to thoracic epidural analgesia. There were no reported complications and the risk of haemodynamic instability appears to be low. The current evidence, though limited, supports the efficacy and safety of serratus anterior plane and the pectoral nerves blocks as analgesic options in cardiothoracic surgery.

Summary Ultrasound‐guided fascial plane blocks of the chest wall are increasingly popular alternatives to established techniques such as thoracic epidural or paravertebral blockade, as they are simple to perform and have an appealing safety profile. Many different techniques have been described, which can be broadly categorised into anteromedial, anterolateral and posterior chest wall blocks. Understanding the relevant clinical anatomy is critical not only for block performance, but also to match block techniques appropriately with surgical procedures. The sensory innervation of tissues deep to the skin (e.g. muscles, ligaments and bone) can be overlooked, but is often a significant source of pain. The primary mechanism of action for these blocks is a conduction blockade of sensory afferents travelling in the targeted fascial planes, as well as of peripheral nociceptors in the surrounding tissues. A systemic action of absorbed local anaesthetic is plausible but unlikely to be a major contributor. The current evidence for their clinical applications indicates that certain chest wall techniques provide significant benefit in breast and thoracic surgery, similar to that provided by thoracic paravertebral blockade. Their role in trauma and cardiac surgery is evolving and holds great potential. Further avenues of research into these versatile techniques include: optimal local anaesthetic dosing strategies; high‐quality randomised controlled trials focusing on patient‐centred outcomes beyond acute pain; and comparative studies to determine which of the myriad blocks currently on offer should be core competencies in anaesthetic practice.

No abstract

The interfascial thoracic wall blockades Pecs I and Pecs II are increasingly applied in breast and axillary surgery. Despite the clear anatomical demarcations depicted at their introduction, the clinical outcome is more variable than would be expected based upon the described anatomy. In order to elucidate factors that explain this variability, we evaluated the spread of each injectionmedial Pecs I, lateral Pecs I, the deep injection of the Pecs II-separately. A correlation of in vivo landmarks and ultrasound images with ex vivo ultrasound, reconstructed anatomical planes, histology and magnetic resonance imaging. The medial Pecs I, similar to the sagittal infraclavicular block positioning with needle position medial to the pectoral branch of the thoracoacromial artery, reaches the medial and lateral pectoral nerves. The lateral Pecs I, below the lateral third of the clavicle at the level of the third rib with needle position lateral to the pectoral branch of the thoracoacromial artery, additionally spreads to the axilla and reaches the intercostobrachial nerve. The deep Pecs II injection spreads to the lateral cutaneous part of the III-VI intercostal nerves and reaches the long thoracic nerve. The variability of the Pecs anesthetic blockades is driven by the selected Pecs I approach as only the lateral approach stains the intercostobrachial nerve. The pectoral branch of the thoracoacromial artery can serve as the landmark to differentiate the needle position of the medial and lateral Pecs I block. Clin. Anat. 32:421-429, 2019.

Background Spine surgery is associated with considerable postoperative pain and can be challenging to treat. A loco-regional technique suitable for spine surgery should cover the dorsal root of the spinal nerves at the levels where surgery is performed. The erector spinae block is a loco-regional technique with promising results and was recently described at the thoracic level. There are no randomized trials of this technique on a lumbar level. This study tests the hypothesis that the 24-h postoperative morphine consumption is significantly lower in patients undergoing posterior lumbar inter-body fusion surgery with a lumbar erector spinae (LUMBES) block when compared with a sham block. Methods This prospective randomized double-blind multicenter study will randomly allocate 80 adult patients undergoing elective posterior lumbar inter-body fusion surgery during general anesthesia to one of two groups as follows: (1) bilateral erector spinae block (20 mL 0.25% levobupivacaine) or (2) bilateral sham block (20 mL NaCl 0.9%). Our primary endpoint is 24-h postoperative morphine consumption. Secondary endpoints include 72-h morphine consumption, intraoperative sufentanil dosage, postoperative pain scores at regular time intervals both at rest and during movement, time to first postoperative mobilization, and the Quality of Recovery 40 survey score. Discussion The LUMBES trial is a pragmatic clinical study that will provide evidence of whether a bilateral lumbar erector spinae block is effective in reducing 24-h postoperative morphine consumption in patients undergoing lumbar inter-body fusion surgery. If this hypothesis is confirmed, this finding could contribute to more widespread implementation of this technique. Trial registration Local ethics committee B300201837508, ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03825198 . Registered on 31 Jan 2019. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-019-3541-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Postoperative analgesia in patients undergoing spinal fusion surgery is challenging due to the invasiveness of the surgical procedure and the frequent use of opioids preoperatively by many patients. Recently, the erector spinae plane (ESP) block has been introduced in our clinical practice as part of a multimodal pain strategy after posterior lumbar interbody fusion surgery. This is a retrospective case–control study evaluating the analgesic efficacy of the ESP block when added to our standard analgesic regimen for posterior lumbar interbody fusion surgery. Twenty patients who received an erector spinae plane block were compared with 20 controls. The primary endpoint was postoperative pain, measured by the numeric rating scale. Secondary outcome measures were opioid use, postoperative nausea and vomiting, and length of stay. Postoperative pain scores in the PACU were lower in patients who received an erector spinae plane block (p = 0.041). Opioid consumption during surgery and in the PACU was not significantly different. Need for patient-controlled analgesia postoperatively was significantly lower in the group receiving an ESP block (p = 0.010). Length of stay in hospital was reduced from 3.23 days (IQR 1.1) in the control group to 2.74 days (IQR 1.6) in the study group (p = 0.012). Adding an erector spinae plane block to the analgesic regimen for posterior lumbar interbody fusion surgery seemed to reduce postoperative pain and length of hospital stay.