Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Background We compare two perioperative pain management procedures(a radioscopicallyguided erector spinae plane [ESP] block versus the standard wound infiltration technique with local anesthetics) in patients undergoing lumbosacral spine surgery. Methods A randomized, double-blind clinical trial was performed, in which adults at our hospital undergoing lumbosacral surgery without fixation were randomly assigned to receive either the standard wound infiltration technique, employing long-term anesthetics, or a radioscopicallyguided ESP block. Postoperative pain severity, morphine consumption, number of patients immobilized due to wound pain, length of hospitalization, and complications were recorded. Results Over the first 7 postoperative hours, pain relief was superior in the ESP block group among patients who underwent diskectomies or one-level decompression (p< 0.0001). Using an ESP block also was statistically superior at decreasing all postoperative variables recorded in patients scheduled for multilevel decompression: visual analog scale (VAS) pain severity over the first 7 hours after the procedure (p = 0.0004); number of patients with wound pain 1 (p = 0.049), 7 (p< 0.0001), and 24 hours (p = 0.007) after surgery; length of hospitalization (p = 0.0007), number of patients immobilized for wound pain (p = 0.0004) and rescue morphine consumption (p< 0.0001). Conclusion The ESP block is a safe procedure that seems to outperform the infiltration wound technique for postoperative pain management in patients undergoing open spinal surgery. Future studies are needed to verify its effectiveness for arthrodesis/fixation and minimallyinvasive procedures, and for chronic spine pain relief.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Beltrame et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: