Anticancer research · 2021
Erector Spinae Plane Block Versus Serratus Plane Block in Breast Conserving Surgery: Α Randomized Controlled Trial.
Сравнительное исследованиеEquivalence TrialСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Vanni Gianluca, Caiazza Giordana, Materazzo Marco, Storti Generoso, Pellicciaro Marco, Buonomo Chiara, Natoli Silvia, Fabbi Eleonora, Dauri Mario
Аннотация
BACKGROUND/AIM: Erector spinae plane block (ESP Block) was introduced in 2016 as a surgical post-operative analgesia procedure. The present prospective, randomized trial aimed to compare ESP Block with serratus plane block (SPB) plus pectoral nerve blocks (PECS I) during breast conserving surgery (BCS).
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between February 2019 and March 2021, 104 patients undergoing BCS were randomized to receive either ESP block (ESP group n=54) or SPB+PECS I (SPB group=49). Assessment of postoperative pain was recorded by the dynamic and static visual analog scale (VAS) and was compared between groups.
RESULTS: Between-group two-way ANOVA did not reach a statistically significant difference in static and dynamic VAS (p=0.879; p=0.917, respectively). Despite ESP group requiring for higher value of patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) bolus, no statistically significant difference was found in PCA activation pattern between groups (p=0.109). ESP block was a faster technique when compared to SPB+PECS I (p=0.007) and no complications or opioid side-effects were recorded in all groups examined.
CONCLUSION: ESP Block could represent a safe, faster alternative with a single injection to SPB+PECS I in BCS.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between February 2019 and March 2021, 104 patients undergoing BCS were randomized to receive either ESP block (ESP group n=54) or SPB+PECS I (SPB group=49). Assessment of postoperative pain was recorded by the dynamic and static visual analog scale (VAS) and was compared between groups.
RESULTS: Between-group two-way ANOVA did not reach a statistically significant difference in static and dynamic VAS (p=0.879; p=0.917, respectively). Despite ESP group requiring for higher value of patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) bolus, no statistically significant difference was found in PCA activation pattern between groups (p=0.109). ESP block was a faster technique when compared to SPB+PECS I (p=0.007) and no complications or opioid side-effects were recorded in all groups examined.
CONCLUSION: ESP Block could represent a safe, faster alternative with a single injection to SPB+PECS I in BCS.