Key result
Erector spinae plane block significantly prolonged the time to first analgesic requirement compared to single-shot epidural block (median 11.5 vs. 7 hours, P < 0.001) in lumbar spine surgery.
Why the study?
Epidural block is effective for spine surgery analgesia and erector spinae plane block has shown promising results in various surgeries, but their comparative efficacy in spine surgery required evaluation.
Does erector spinae plane block improve postoperative analgesia compared to single-shot epidural block in patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery?
RCT (n=67)
Double-blind
Computer-generated random sequence
No
Does erector spinae plane block improve postoperative analgesia compared to single-shot epidural block in patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery?
Erector spinae plane block provides longer postoperative analgesia, less opioid consumption, and greater hemodynamic stability compared to single-shot epidural block in lumbar spine surgery.
ESPB extended analgesia duration and reduced opioids versus epidural with superior hemodynamics; supports ESPB as alternative in lumbar spine surgery.
Background: Epidural block is an effective route for analgesia in spine surgeries. Erector spinae plane block (ESPB) is a field block that showed promising results in various surgeries. We compared both procedures in spine surgery, regarding postoperative pain, the time to first analgesic request, postoperative total morphine consumption, perioperative hemodynamics, and any adverse events. Methodology: Sixty-seven patients were enrolled in this double-blinded randomized controlled study. Patients were allocated into two groups. The epidural group received an ultrasound-guided single-shot epidural block with 20 mL of 0.25% bupivacaine. The ESPB group received an ultrasound-guided bilateral single-shot ESPB with 20 mL of 0.25% bupivacaine for each side. Postoperative pain, the time to first analgesic request, postoperative total morphine consumption, perioperative hemodynamics, and any adverse events were recorded. Results: The time to the first analgesic requirement was longer in the ESPB group (11.5 [9-14] h, vs. 7 [5-8] h, P < 0.001). The mean morphine consumption was lower in the ESPB group (3.88 ± 0.54 vs. 7.12 ± 1.94 mg; P < 0.001). The numeric rating scale was lower in the epidural group. Less patients experienced intraoperative hypotension and tachycardia in ESPB group. Conclusion: ESPB provides longer postoperative analgesia, less opioid consumption, and more intraoperative hemodynamic stability when compared with a single-shot epidural block in lumbar spine surgery. Trial registration: The ethical approval was obtained from the Research Ethics Committee of Cairo University (M D-82-2019), and the trial was registered on www.clinicaltrials.gov with registration number (NCT04320212). https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04320212 Abbreviations: ESPB - Erector spinae plane block; LA - Local anesthetics Key words: Erector spinae plane block; Pain, Postoperative; Spine surgery; Analgesia, Epidural; Fascial plane blocks; Neuraxial analgesia Citation: Abdelhamid HS, ElSabbagh HA, Amin SM, Abdelhakim AK. Erector spinae plane block vs. single shot epidural block for postoperative analgesia in lumbar spine surgery: a randomized controlled trial. Anaesth. pain intensive care 2022;26(3):310-317. DOI: 10.35975/apic.v26i3.1897 Received: February 01, 2022; Reviewed: March 13, 2022; Accepted: March 23, 2022
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Abdelhamid et al. (2022) conducted an RCT in Lumbar spine surgery (n=67). Erector spinae plane block vs. Single-shot epidural block with 20 mL of 0.25% bupivacaine was evaluated on Time to first analgesic requirement (p=<0.001). Erector spinae plane block significantly prolonged the time to first analgesic requirement compared to single-shot epidural block (median 11.5 vs. 7 hours, P < 0.001) in lumbar spine surgery.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: