Key result
Rhomboid intercostal block with 0.3% ropivacaine significantly improved the overall Quality of Recovery-40 score at 24 hours compared to control (172.8 vs 151.7, p<0.001) in patients undergoing VATS.
Why the study?
The anesthetic characteristics of ultrasound-guided rhombic intercostal block (RIB) with different concentrations of ropivacaine were not known.
Does ultrasound-guided rhombic intercostal block with different concentrations of ropivacaine improve the quality of recovery in patients undergoing video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery?
RCT (n=100)
Double-blind
randomized
No
Does ultrasound-guided rhombic intercostal block with different concentrations of ropivacaine improve the quality of recovery in patients undergoing video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery?
A dose of 0.3% ropivacaine is the optimal concentration for rhombic intercostal block to improve recovery quality in patients undergoing VATS, as higher concentrations do not significantly improve analgesia.
Supports rhomboid intercostal block to enhance VATS recovery; confirms RCT efficacy for this regional technique.
Background: Ultrasound-guided rhombic intercostal block (RIB) is a novel regional block that provides analgesia for patients who have received video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS). The anesthetic characteristics of ultrasound-guided RIB with different concentrations of ropivacaine are not known. This research primarily hypothesizes that ultrasound-guided RIB, given in combination with the same volume of different concentrations of ropivacaine, would improve the whole quality of recovery-40 (QoR-40) among patients with VATS. Approaches: This double-blinded, single-center, prospective, and controlled trial randomized 100 patients undergoing VATS to receive RIB. One hundred patients who have received elective VATS and satisfied inclusion standards were fallen into four groups randomly: control group with no RIB and R0.2%, R0.3%, and R0.4%; they underwent common anesthesia plus the RIB with ropivacaine at 0.2%, 0.3%, and 0.4% in a volume of 30 ml. Outcomes: Groups R0.2%, R0.3%, and R0.4% displayed great diversities in the overall QoR-40 scores and QoR-40 dimensions (in addition to psychological support) by comparing with the control group (Group C) (p < 0.001 for all contrasts). Groups R0.3% and R0.4% displayed great diversities in the overall QoR-40 scores and QoR-40 dimensions (in addition to psychological support) by comparing with the R0.2% group (p < 0.001 for all contrasts). The overall QoR-40 scores and QoR-40 dimensions [physical comfort (p = 0.585)] did not vary greatly between Groups R0.3% and R0.4% (p > 0.05 for all contrasts). Groups R0.2%, R0.3%, and R0.4% showed significant differences in numerical rating scales (NRS) score region under the curve (AUC) at rest and on movement in 48 h when compared with the Group C (p < 0.001 for all contrasts). Groups R0.3% and R0.4% displayed great diversities in NRS score AUC at rest and on movement in 48 h when compared with the R0.2% group (p < 0.001 for all contrasts). The NRS mark AUC at rest and, on movement in 48 h, did not vary greatly between the Group R0.3% and R0.4% (p > 0.05 for all contrasts). Conclusion: In this study it was found that a dose of 0.3% ropivacaine is the best concentration for RIB for patients undergoing VATS. Through growing ropivacaine concentration, the analgesia of the RIB was not improved greatly. Clinicaltrials.gov Registration: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ , identifier ChiCTR2100046254.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Deng et al. (2022) conducted an RCT in Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) (n=100). Rhomboid intercostal block with ropivacaine vs. No block (control) was evaluated on Overall Quality of Recovery-40 (QoR-40) score at 24 hours (p=<0.001). Rhomboid intercostal block with 0.3% ropivacaine significantly improved the overall Quality of Recovery-40 score at 24 hours compared to control (172.8 vs 151.7, p<0.001) in patients undergoing VATS.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: