Revista espanola de anestesiologia y reanimacion · 2024
The efficacy of the ultrasound-guided retrolaminar block versus the classic paravertebral block in patients undergoing unilateral inguinal hernioplasty: a randomized controlled study.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Eldadamony Mohammed Z, Nashaat Mohammed M, Gad Mostafa M, Bahy O, Elsaid Rashad A
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: In daily surgical practice, inguinal hernioplasty is a frequent procedure that is frequently accompanied by severe postoperative pain. Multiple regional blocks have been described for analgesia after such operations. Retrolaminar block (RLB) is a paravertebral block (PVB) variant that provides excellent analgesia and reduces the risk of complications. This prospective trial compared the analgesic efficacy of PVB and RLB in the inguinal hernioplasty.
METHODS: The 56 patients included were randomly assigned into two equal groups according to the block performed under ultrasound guidance at the T12 level: PVB group (28 patients) and RLB (28 patients). Time until the first rescue analgesia was our primary outcome. Other outcomes included the time to perform the block, changes in intraoperative hemodynamic parameters, postoperative VAS, 24-h morphine consumption, the level of patient satisfaction, and the incidence of block-related complications.
RESULTS: Demographic data were comparable in the two groups. However, the time needed for the block was significantly shortened with the RLB (p < 0.001). Patients in the PVB groups expressed better pain scores and lower opioid consumption. Additionally, the time to the first call for opioid analgesia showed a significant prolongation in association with the PVB. There was no discernible difference in the frequency of adverse events and recorded MAP and HR.
CONCLUSION: The PVB has a superior perioperative analgesic profile compared to the RLB, which manifested in the prolonged duration to the first rescue analgesics, better pain scores, and less opioid consumption, with no significant increase in block-related complications.
METHODS: The 56 patients included were randomly assigned into two equal groups according to the block performed under ultrasound guidance at the T12 level: PVB group (28 patients) and RLB (28 patients). Time until the first rescue analgesia was our primary outcome. Other outcomes included the time to perform the block, changes in intraoperative hemodynamic parameters, postoperative VAS, 24-h morphine consumption, the level of patient satisfaction, and the incidence of block-related complications.
RESULTS: Demographic data were comparable in the two groups. However, the time needed for the block was significantly shortened with the RLB (p < 0.001). Patients in the PVB groups expressed better pain scores and lower opioid consumption. Additionally, the time to the first call for opioid analgesia showed a significant prolongation in association with the PVB. There was no discernible difference in the frequency of adverse events and recorded MAP and HR.
CONCLUSION: The PVB has a superior perioperative analgesic profile compared to the RLB, which manifested in the prolonged duration to the first rescue analgesics, better pain scores, and less opioid consumption, with no significant increase in block-related complications.