Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2020 Jan-Feb;70(1):22-27.
doi: 10.1016/j.bjan.2019.12.009. Epub 2020 Feb 27.

[Comparison between erector spinal plane block and epidural block techniques for postoperative analgesia in open cholecystectomies: a randomized clinical trial]

[Article in Portuguese]
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

[Comparison between erector spinal plane block and epidural block techniques for postoperative analgesia in open cholecystectomies: a randomized clinical trial]

[Article in Portuguese]
Thiago Mamoru Sakae et al. Braz J Anesthesiol. 2020 Jan-Feb.

Abstract

Introduction and objectives: Blockade of the Erector Spinal Muscle (ESP Block) is a relatively new block, initially described for chronic thoracic pain analgesia, but it has already been described for anesthesia and analgesia in thoracic surgical procedures and, more recently, for high abdominal surgeries. The aim of the study was to compare two techniques, ESP Block and Epidural Block, with morphine and local anesthetic for postoperative analgesia of open cholecystectomy surgeries.

Methods: Controlled single-blind randomized clinical trial with 31 patients (ESP Block, n = 15; Epidural, n = 16), of both genders, ages between 27 and 77 years. The ESP block was performed at the T8 level with injection of 20 mL of 0.5% ropivacaine bilaterally. The epidural block was performed at the T8–T9 space with 20 mL of 0.5% ropivacaine and 1 mg of morphine.

Results: The ESP Block group presented higher mean ​​Numeric Pain Scale (NPS) values for pain in the up to 2 hour (p = 0.001) and in the 24 hour (p = 0.001) assessments. The ESP Block group had a three-fold increased risk (43.7% vs. 13.3%) of rescue opioid use in the 24 postoperative hours when compared to the epidural group (RR = 3.72, 95% CI: 0.91 to 15.31, p = 0.046).

Conclusion: ESP Block did not prove to be an effective technique for postoperative analgesia of open cholecystectomy, at the doses performed in this study, having required more use of rescue opioid, and without differences in NPS. More comprehensive studies are required to assess the efficacy of ESP block for the visceral and abdominal somatic component, considering the specific blockade level.

Keywords: Analgesia; Anestesia regional; Bloqueio epidural; Cholecystectomy; Colecistectomia; ESP block; Ensaio controlado randomizado; Epidural block; Randomized controlled trial; Regional anesthesia.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Study flow chart (CONSORT standard).

Comment in

References

    1. Droguethi A., Fusco P. The ultrasound-guided continuous erector spinae plane block for postoperative analgesia in video-assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy. Reg Anest Pain Med. 2017;42:537. - PubMed
    1. Leyva F.M., Mendiola W.E., Bonilla A.J., et al. Continuous erector spinae plane (ESP) block for postoperative analgesia after minimally invasive mitral valve surgery: a case report. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2018;32:2271–2274. - PubMed
    1. Forero M., Adhikary S.D., Lopez H., et al. The erector spinae plane block: a novel analgesic technique in thoracic neuropathic pain. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2016;41:621–627. - PubMed
    1. Forero M., Rajarathinam M., Adhikary S.D., Chin K.J. Erector spinae plane block for the management of chronic shoulder pain: a case report. Can J Anaesth. 2018;65:288–293. - PubMed
    1. Restrepo-Garces C.E., Chin K.J., Suarez P., et al. Bilateral continuous erector spinae plane block contributes to effective postoperative analgesia after major open abdominal surgery: a case report. A A Case Rep. 2017;9:319–321. - PubMed

Publication types