Brazilian journal of anesthesiology (Elsevier) · 2021
Effects of erector spinae plane block and retrolaminar block on analgesia for multiple rib fractures: a randomized, double-blinded clinical trial.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Zhao Yaoping, Tao Yan, Zheng Shaoqiang, Cai Nan, Cheng Long, Xie Hao, Wang Geng
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effects of Erector Spinae Plane Block (ESPB) and Retrolaminar Block (RLB) on intra- and postoperative analgesia in patients with Multiple Rib Fractures (MRFs).
METHODS: A total of 80 MRFs patients were randomly divided into the ESPB (Group E) and RLB (Group R) groups. After general anesthesia, ESPB and RLB were performed under ultrasound guidance, respectively, together with 20 mL of 0.5% ropivacaine and Patient-Controlled Intravenous Analgesia (PCIA).
RESULTS: Thirty-four cases in Group E and 33,cases in Group R showed unclear paravertebral spaces. The intraoperative dosage of remifentanil (mean ± SD) (392.8 ± 118.7 vs. 501.7 ± 190.0 μg) and postoperative morphine PCIA dosage, (7.35 ± 1.55 vs. 14.73 ± 2.18 mg) in Group R were significantly less than those in Group E; the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores in Group R at 2 (2.7 ± 1.2 vs. 3.4 ± 1.4), 4 (2.2 ± 1.1 vs. 2.8 ± 0.9), 12 (2.5 ± 0.9 vs. 3.0 ± 0.8), and 24 hours (2.6 ± 1.0 vs. 3.1 ± 0.9) after surgery were significantly lower than those in Group E. Finally, the normal respiratory diaphragm activity (2.17 ± 0.22 vs. 2.05 ± 0.19), pH (median [IQR] (7.38 [7.31-7.45] vs. 7.36 [7.30-7.42]), and partial pressure of carbon dioxide (PaCO2) (44 [35-49] vs. 42.5 [30-46]) after the operation in Group R were significantly better than those in Group E (p < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: RLB was a more effective analgesic method than ESPB in the treatment of MRF.
METHODS: A total of 80 MRFs patients were randomly divided into the ESPB (Group E) and RLB (Group R) groups. After general anesthesia, ESPB and RLB were performed under ultrasound guidance, respectively, together with 20 mL of 0.5% ropivacaine and Patient-Controlled Intravenous Analgesia (PCIA).
RESULTS: Thirty-four cases in Group E and 33,cases in Group R showed unclear paravertebral spaces. The intraoperative dosage of remifentanil (mean ± SD) (392.8 ± 118.7 vs. 501.7 ± 190.0 μg) and postoperative morphine PCIA dosage, (7.35 ± 1.55 vs. 14.73 ± 2.18 mg) in Group R were significantly less than those in Group E; the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores in Group R at 2 (2.7 ± 1.2 vs. 3.4 ± 1.4), 4 (2.2 ± 1.1 vs. 2.8 ± 0.9), 12 (2.5 ± 0.9 vs. 3.0 ± 0.8), and 24 hours (2.6 ± 1.0 vs. 3.1 ± 0.9) after surgery were significantly lower than those in Group E. Finally, the normal respiratory diaphragm activity (2.17 ± 0.22 vs. 2.05 ± 0.19), pH (median [IQR] (7.38 [7.31-7.45] vs. 7.36 [7.30-7.42]), and partial pressure of carbon dioxide (PaCO2) (44 [35-49] vs. 42.5 [30-46]) after the operation in Group R were significantly better than those in Group E (p < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: RLB was a more effective analgesic method than ESPB in the treatment of MRF.