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
. 2025 Aug 1;160(8):855-864.
doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2025.1899.

Intercostal or Paravertebral Block vs Thoracic Epidural in Lung Surgery: A Randomized Noninferiority Trial

Louisa N Spaans  1   2 , Marcel G W Dijkgraaf  2   3 , Denis Susa  4 , Erik R de Loos  5 , Jo M J Mourisse  6 , R Arthur Bouwman  7   8 , Ad F T M Verhagen  9 , Frank J C van den Broek  1 ; OPtriAL Study Group; Patrick Meijer  10 , Marieke Kuut  6 , Nike Hanneman  11 , Jelle Bousema  11 , Aimée Franssen  5 , Hes Brokx  4 , Eino van Duyn  12 , Jan-Willem Potters  13 , Renee van den Broek  7 , Thomas van Brakel  14 , Herman Rijna  15 , Annemieke Boom  16 , Valentin Noyez  17 , Jeroen M H Hendriks  18 , Suresh K Yogeswaran  18 , Chris Dickhoff  19 , Martijn van Dorp  19
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Intercostal or Paravertebral Block vs Thoracic Epidural in Lung Surgery: A Randomized Noninferiority Trial

Louisa N Spaans et al. JAMA Surg. .

Abstract

Importance: Effective pain control after thoracic surgery is crucial for enhanced recovery. While thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA) traditionally ensures optimal analgesia, its adverse effects conflict with the principles of enhanced recovery after thoracic surgery. High-quality randomized data regarding less invasive alternative locoregional techniques are lacking.

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of continuous paravertebral block (PVB) and a single-shot intercostal nerve block (ICNB) as alternatives to TEA.

Design, setting, and participants: This randomized clinical trial compared PVB and ICNB vs TEA (1:1:1) in patients undergoing thoracoscopic anatomical lung resection at 11 hospitals in the Netherlands and Belgium, enrolled from March 5, 2021, to September 5, 2023. The study used a noninferiority design for pain and a superiority design for quality of recovery (QoR).

Interventions: Continuous PVB and single-shot ICNB.

Main outcomes and measures: Primary outcomes were pain, defined as mean proportion of pain scores 4 or greater during postoperative days (POD) 0 through 2 (noninferiority margin for the upper limit [UL] 1-sided 98.65% CI, 17.5%), and QoR, assessed with the QoR-15 questionnaire at POD 1 and 2. Secondary measures included opioid consumption, mobilization, complications, and hospitalization.

Results: A total of 450 patients were randomized, with 389 included in the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis (mean [SD] age, 66 [9] years; 208 female patients [54%] and 181 male [46%]). Of these 389 patients, 131 received TEA, 134 received PVB, and 124 received ICNB. The mean proportions of pain scores 4 or greater were 20.7% (95% CI, 16.5%-24.9%) for TEA, 35.5% (95% CI, 30.1%-40.8%) for PVB, and 29.5% (95% CI, 24.6%-34.4%) for ICNB. While PVB was inferior to TEA regarding pain (ITT: UL, 22.4%; analysis per-protocol [PP]: UL, 23.1%), ICNB was noninferior to TEA (ITT: UL, 16.1%; PP: UL, 17.0%). The mean (SD) QoR-15 scores were similar across groups: 104.96 (20.47) for TEA, 106.06 (17.94; P = .641) for PVB (P = .64 for that comparison), and 106.85 (21.11) for ICNB (P = .47 for that comparison). Both ICNB and PVB significantly reduced opioid consumption and enhanced mobility compared with TEA, with no significant differences in complications. Hospitalization was shorter in the ICNB group.

Conclusions and relevance: After thoracoscopic anatomical lung resection, only ICNB provides noninferior pain relief compared with TEA. ICNB emerges as an alternative to TEA, although risks and benefits should be weighed for optimal personalized pain control.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05491239.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Bouwman reported consultancy fees from Philips Research outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

Comment on

References

    1. Batchelor TJP, Rasburn NJ, Abdelnour-Berchtold E, et al. Guidelines for enhanced recovery after lung surgery: recommendations of the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society and the European Society of Thoracic Surgeons (ESTS). Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2019;55(1):91-115. doi: 10.1093/ejcts/ezy301 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Steinthorsdottir KJ, Wildgaard L, Hansen HJ, Petersen RH, Wildgaard K. Regional analgesia for video-assisted thoracic surgery: a systematic review. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2014;45(6):959-966. doi: 10.1093/ejcts/ezt525 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Spaans LN, Bousema JE, van den Broek FJC. Variation in postoperative pain management after lung surgery in the Netherlands: a survey of Dutch thoracic surgeons. Br J Anaesth. 2022;128(3):e222-e225. doi: 10.1016/j.bja.2021.12.005 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Obuchi T, Yoshida Y, Moroga T, Miyahara N, Iwasaki A. Postoperative pain in thoracic surgery: re-evaluating the benefits of VATS when coupled with epidural analgesia. J Thorac Dis. 2017;9(11):4347-4352. doi: 10.21037/jtd.2017.09.133 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Feray S, Lubach J, Joshi GP, Bonnet F, Van de Velde M; PROSPECT Working Group *of the European Society of Regional Anaesthesia and Pain Therapy . PROSPECT guidelines for video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery: a systematic review and procedure-specific postoperative pain management recommendations. Anaesthesia. 2022;77(3):311-325. doi: 10.1111/anae.15609 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Associated data