Comparing erector spinae plane block with serratus anterior plane block for minimally invasive thoracic surgery: a randomised clinical trial
- PMID: 32660716
- DOI: 10.1016/j.bja.2020.06.020
Comparing erector spinae plane block with serratus anterior plane block for minimally invasive thoracic surgery: a randomised clinical trial
Abstract
Background: Minimally invasive thoracic surgery causes significant postoperative pain. Erector spinae plane (ESP) block and serratus anterior plane (SAP) block promise effective thoracic analgesia compared with systemically administered opioids, but have never been compared in terms of terms of quality of recovery and overall morbidity after minimally invasive thoracic surgery.
Methods: Sixty adult patients undergoing minimally invasive thoracic surgery were randomly assigned to receive either single-shot ESP or SAP block before surgery using levobupivacaine 0.25%, 30 ml. The primary outcome was quality of patient recovery at 24 h, using the Quality of Recovery-15 (QoR-15) scale. Secondary outcomes included area under the curve (AUC) of pain verbal rating scale (VRS) over time, time to first opioid analgesia, postoperative 24 h opioid consumption, in-hospital comprehensive complication index (CCI) score and hospital stay.
Results: The QoR-15 score was higher among ESP patients compared with those in the SAP group, mean (standard deviation): 114 (16) vs 102 (22) (P=0.02). Time (min) to first i.v. opioid analgesia in recovery was 32.6 (20.6) in ESP vs 12.7 (9.5) in SAP (P=0.003). AUC at rest was 92 (31) mm h-1vs 112 (35) in ESP and SAP (P=0.03), respectively, whereas AUC on deep inspiration was 107 mm h-1 (32) vs 129 (32) in ESP and SAP (P=0.01), respectively. VRS pain on movement in ESP and SAP at 24 h was, median (25-75% range): 4 (2-4) vs 5 (3-6) (P=0.04), respectively. Opioid consumption at 24 h postoperatively was 29 (31) vs 39 (34) (P=0.37). Median (25-75%) CCI in ESP and SAP was 1 (0-2) vs 4 (0-26) (P=0.03), whereas hospital stay was 3 (2-6) vs 6 (3-9) days (P=0.17), respectively.
Conclusion: Compared with SAP, ESP provides superior quality of recovery at 24 h, lower morbidity, and better analgesia after minimally invasive thoracic surgery.
Clinical trial registration: NCT03862612.
Keywords: erector spinae plane block; quality of recovery; robotic-assisted thoracic surgery; serratus anterior plane block; video-assisted thoracic surgery.
Copyright © 2020 British Journal of Anaesthesia. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Comment in
-
Fascial plane blocks in regional anaesthesia: how problematic is simplification?Br J Anaesth. 2020 Nov;125(5):649-651. doi: 10.1016/j.bja.2020.08.013. Epub 2020 Sep 28. Br J Anaesth. 2020. PMID: 32896432 No abstract available.
-
A comparison of fascial plane blocks on quality of recovery for minimally invasive thoracic surgery. Comment on Br J Anaesth 2020; 125: 802-10.Br J Anaesth. 2021 Jul;127(1):e14-e15. doi: 10.1016/j.bja.2021.03.025. Epub 2021 Apr 30. Br J Anaesth. 2021. PMID: 33934888 No abstract available.
-
Sample size calculation in randomised clinical trials. Comment on Br J Anaesth 2020; 125: 802-10.Br J Anaesth. 2022 Apr;128(4):e288-e289. doi: 10.1016/j.bja.2022.01.013. Epub 2022 Feb 8. Br J Anaesth. 2022. PMID: 35144803 No abstract available.
-
Management of Post-Thoracoscopy Pain: Should Erector Spinae Plane Block Be the Optimal Choice?J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2023 Dec;37(12):2687-2688. doi: 10.1053/j.jvca.2023.08.150. Epub 2023 Sep 4. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2023. PMID: 37775343 No abstract available.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
Associated data
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
Miscellaneous