Regional anesthesia and pain medicine · 2025
Continuous erector spinae plane block versus thoracic epidural analgesia in video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery: a prospective randomized open-label non-inferiority trial.
Сравнительное исследованиеEquivalence TrialСтатьяМногоцентровое 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.
van den Broek Renee J C, Postema Jonne M C, Koopman Joseph S H A, van Rossem Charles C, Olsthoorn Jules R, van Brakel Thomas J, Houterman Saskia, Bouwman R Arthur, Versyck Barbara
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The evolving surgical techniques in thoracoscopic surgery necessitate the exploration of anesthesiological techniques. This study aimed to investigate whether incorporating a continuous erector spinae plane (ESP) block into a multimodal analgesia regimen is non-inferior to continuous thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA) in terms of quality of postoperative recovery for patients undergoing elective unilateral video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery.
METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, prospective, randomized, open-label non-inferiority trial between July 2020 and December 2022. Ninety patients were randomly assigned to receive either continuous ESP block or TEA. The primary outcome parameter was the Quality of Recovery-15 (QoR-15) score, measured before surgery as a baseline and on postoperative days 0, 1, and 2. Secondary outcome parameters included pain scores, length of hospital stay, morphine consumption, nausea and vomiting, itching, speed of mobilization, and urinary catheterization.
RESULTS: Analysis of the primary outcome showed a mean QoR-15 difference between the groups ESP block versus TEA of 1 (95% CI -9 to -12, p=0.79) on day 0, -1 (95% CI -11 to -8, p=0.81) on day 1 and -2 (95% CI -14 to -11, p=0.79) on day 2.
CONCLUSIONS: The continuous ESP block is non-inferior to TEA in video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Dutch Trial Register (NL6433).
METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, prospective, randomized, open-label non-inferiority trial between July 2020 and December 2022. Ninety patients were randomly assigned to receive either continuous ESP block or TEA. The primary outcome parameter was the Quality of Recovery-15 (QoR-15) score, measured before surgery as a baseline and on postoperative days 0, 1, and 2. Secondary outcome parameters included pain scores, length of hospital stay, morphine consumption, nausea and vomiting, itching, speed of mobilization, and urinary catheterization.
RESULTS: Analysis of the primary outcome showed a mean QoR-15 difference between the groups ESP block versus TEA of 1 (95% CI -9 to -12, p=0.79) on day 0, -1 (95% CI -11 to -8, p=0.81) on day 1 and -2 (95% CI -14 to -11, p=0.79) on day 2.
CONCLUSIONS: The continuous ESP block is non-inferior to TEA in video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Dutch Trial Register (NL6433).