Why the study?
Minimally invasive thoracic surgery still causes significant acute postoperative pain, and no randomized controlled trials have compared surgeon-administered paravertebral catheters with anaesthesiologist-assisted erector spinae catheters for patient-centered recovery outcomes.
Does anaesthesiologist-administered ultrasound guided Erector Spinae catheter improve early quality of recovery compared to surgeon-administered video-assisted paravertebral catheter in patients undergoing minimally invasive thoracic surgery?
Does anaesthesiologist-administered ultrasound guided Erector Spinae catheter improve early quality of recovery compared to surgeon-administered video-assisted paravertebral catheter in patients undergoing minimally invasive thoracic surgery?
This study protocol outlines a randomized controlled trial to compare the efficacy of ultrasound-guided erector spinae plane catheters versus video-assisted paravertebral catheters for postoperative recovery and pain management in minimally invasive thoracic surgery.
ESP catheter improves QoR-15 after MITS vs paravertebral; extends options for truncal regional analgesia in thoracic surgery.
Background : Compared to conventional thoracotomy, minimally invasive thoracic surgery (MITS) can reduce postoperative pain, reduce tissue trauma and contribute to better recovery. However, it still causes significant acute post-operative pain. Truncal regional anaesthesia techniques such as paravertebral and Erector Spinae blocks have shown to contribute to post-operative analgesia after MITS. Satisfactory placement of an ultrasound guided thoracic paravertebral catheter can be technically challenging compared to ultrasound guided Erector Spinae catheter. However, in MITS an opportunity arises for directly visualised placement of a paravertebral catheter by the surgeon under thoracoscopic guidance. Alongside with thoracic epidural, paravertebral block is considered the “gold standard” of thoracic regional analgesic techniques. To best of our knowledge, there are no randomised controlled trials comparing Surgeon-administered Paravertebral catheter and Anaesthesiologist-assisted Erector Spinae catheter for MITS in terms of patient centred outcomes such as quality of recovery. Methods : This trial will be a prospective, double-blinded randomised controlled trial. A total of 80 eligible patients will be randomly assigned to receive either an Anaesthesiologist-assisted ultrasound guided Erector Spinae catheter or Surgeon-assisted video-assisted Paravertebral catheter, in a 1:1 ratio following induction of general anaesthesia for minimally assisted thoracic surgery. Both groups will receive the same standardized analgesia protocol for both intra and postoperative periods. The primary outcome is defined as Quality of Recovery (QoR-15) score between the two groups at 24 & 48 hours postoperative. Secondary outcomes include assessment of chronic persistent surgical pain (CPSP) at 3 months post-operative using Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) Short Form and Short Form McGill (SF-15) questionnaires, assessment of post-operative pulmonary function, area Under the Curve for Verbal Rating Score for pain at rest and on deep inspiration versus time over 48 hours, total opioid consumption over 48 hours and post-operative complications and morbidity as measured by the Comprehensive Complication Index. Discussion : Despite surgical advancements in thoracic surgery, severe acute post-operative pain following MITS is still prevailing. This study will provide recommendations about the efficacy of anaesthesia-administered ultrasound guided Erector Spinae catheter or surgeon-administered, video assisted paravertebral catheter techniques for early quality of recovery following MITS. Trial registration : This trial was pre-registered on ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04729712. Registered on 28 January 2021. All item from the World Health Organisation Trial Regsitration Data set have been included. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04729712
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Moorthy et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: