Background To evaluate the analgesic efficacy and spread of variable volumes of local anesthetics (LA) in Erector spinae plane block (ESPB). Methods Sixty patients aged between 18 and 50 years with an ASA I-II and scheduled for breast cancer surgery were randomized to receive either ESPB with 20 ml 0.25% bupivacaine (Standard volume ESPB), or with 40 ml 0.125% bupivacaine (High volume ESPB), or no ESPB (GA only group). The primary outcome was pain intensity evaluated by the visual analogue scale (VAS), 12 hours after surgery. P-values < 0.05 were considered the cutoff point for statistical significance. The secondary outcomes were pain at rest and pain on movement evaluated by the VAS, craniocaudal injectate spread, to paravertebral (PV) and epidural spaces assessed by CT, clinical dermatomal spread, level of sedation or agitation, and patient satisfaction with anesthesia and analgesia. Results VAS at rest 12 h after surgery was less in both intervention groups compared to the control (1.75 ± 0.79 vs. 1.6 ± 0.88 vs. 3.4 ± 1.96, p = 0.001). The LA had extended further in the high volume group than the standard volume group (11.20 ± 3.07 vs. 9.15 ± 2.54 vertebral levels, p = 0.027). No difference of the spread to PV or epidural spaces between the 2 intervention groups. More dermatomes were covered in the high volume group (7.20 ± 2.12 vs. 5.75 ± 1.37 dermatomes, p = 0.014). Agitation was higher in the GA only group than both ESPB groups in the first 8 postoperative hours. Patients were more satisfied in both ESPB groups than the GA only group. Conclusions Preoperative ESPB is an excellent analgesic modality and it can also attenuate both postoperative agitation and sedation. Doubling the injectate volume enhances the craniocaudal spreading and may be useful for surgeries requiring multiple dermatomes. However, larger volume has no effect on analgesic efficacy or patient satisfaction as there is no further spread to the PV, epidural spaces or spinal nerve rami. Trial registration NCT04796363 (12/3/2021).
Background:Neuraxial blocks result in sympathetic block, sensory analgesia and motor block. Continuous epidural anesthesia through a catheter offers several options for perioperative analgesia. Local anesthetic boluses or infusions can provide profound analgesia. Although the role of low-dose ketamine (<2 mg/kg intramuscular, <1 mg/kg intravenous [IV] or ≤ 20 μg/kg/min by IV infusion) in the treatment of post-operative pain is controversial, perioperative administration of a small dose of ketamine may be valuable to a multimodal analgesic regimen. A local anesthetic can be used for wound infiltration intra-operative to minimized the surgical pain.Patients and Methods:A prospective randomized study was performed in which 40 patients scheduled for elective open cholecystectomy under general anesthesia admitted to the Medical Research Institute were included and further subdivided into two groups, group A, received thoracic epidural catheter at T7-8, activation was done 20 min before induction of anesthesia with plain bupivacaine at a concentration of 0.25% at a volume of 1 ml/segment aiming to block sensory supply from T4-L2, then received continuous thoracic epidural infusion intra and postoperatively with plain bupivacaine at a concentration of 0.125% at a rate of 5 ml/h for 24 h, group B received 0.3 mg/kg bolus of ketamine at the time of induction then 0.1 mg/kg/h ketamine IV infusion during surgery followed by wound infiltration with 15 ml of plain bupivacaine 0.5% at the time of skin closure.Results:Bupivacaine thoracic epidural analgesia had better control on heart rate and mean arterial blood pressure than ketamine infusion plus wound infiltration with local anesthetic in patients undergoing open cholecystectomy.Conclusion:Thoracic epidural analgesia had better control on hemodynamic changes intra-and postoperatively than ketamine infusion with local wound infiltration in open cholecystectomy.
Background: The goal of this study was to evaluate varying volumes of ESPB on analgesia, LA spread, sedation, and patient satisfaction.Methods: 60 patients aged between 18 and 50 years with an ASA I-II and scheduled for breast cancer surgery were randomized to receive either ESPB with 20 ml 0.25% bupivacaine (Standard volume ESPB), or with 40 ml 0.125% bupivacaine (High volume ESPB), or no ESPB (GA only group). The primary outcome was pain intensity evaluated by the VAS, 12 hours after surgery. P-values < 0.05 were considered the cutoff point for statistical significance. The secondary outcomes were pain at rest and pain on movement evaluated by the VAS, craniocaudal injectate spread, to PV space and epidural space assessed by CT, clinical dermatomal spread, level of sedation assessed by RASS, and patient satisfaction with anaesthesia and analgesia.Results: VAS at rest 12 h after surgery was less in both intervention groups compared with the control (1.75 ± 0.79 vs. 1.6 ± 0.88 vs. 3.4 ± 1.96, p = 0.001). In other time points, VAS was less in each ESPB group compared to GA only during rest and movement and the volume injected made no difference. The LA had extended further in the high volume group than the standard volume group (11.20 ± 3.07 vs. 9.15 ± 2.54 vertebral levels, p = 0.027). No difference of the spread to PV space or epidural space between the 2 intervention groups. More dermatomes were covered in the high volume group (7.20 ± 2.12 vs. 5.75 ± 1.37 dermatomes, p = 0.014). Agitation was higher in GA only group than both ESPB groups in the first 8 postoperative hours. Patient satisfaction was higher in both ESPB groups compared to GA only group.Conclusions: Preoperative ESPB is an excellent analgesic modality that should be considered in breast cancer surgeries. Apart from analgesia it attenuates postoperative agitation and enhances patient satisfaction. Volume injected has no effect on analgesia or patient satisfaction but it results in more LA spread.Trial registration: NCT04796363 (12/3/2021)
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.