Efficacy of erector spinae block versus retrolaminar block for postoperative analgesia following posterior lumbar surgery.
10.12122/j.issn.1673-4254.2019.06.17
- Author:
Tao TAO
1
;
Quan ZHOU
1
Author Information
1. Department of Anesthesiology, Zhanjiang Central People's Hospital, Zhanjiang 524045, China.
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
erector spinae plane block;
postoperative acute pain;
retrolaminar block
- MeSH:
Analgesia, Patient-Controlled;
Humans;
Lumbosacral Region;
surgery;
Nerve Block;
Pain, Postoperative;
Sufentanil
- From:
Journal of Southern Medical University
2019;39(6):736-739
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
OBJECTIVE:To compare the effect of erector spinae plane block and retrolaminar block for relieving acute pain after posterior lumbar surgery.
METHODS:Eighty-nine patients undergoing selective posterior lumbar surgery under general anesthesia in our hospital between January and December, 2018, were recruited. Of these patients, 30 received total intravenous general anesthesia to serve as the control group, 28 received total intravenous general anesthesia (TIVA) combined with erector spinae plane block (ESPB), and 31 had TIVA combined with retrolaminar block (RLB). All the patients received patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA) for postoperative analgesia, and their heart rate, blood pressure, and pulse oximetry were routinely monitored during the anesthesia. VAS scores were evaluated before and at 2, 8, 12, 24, and 48 h after the surgery. Sufentanil consumption during the operation and PCIA were also recorded. The postoperative complications such as nausea and vomiting, urinary retention, itching and respiratory depression within 48 h after the surgery were also recorded.
RESULTS:At 2, 8 and 12 h postoperatively, VAS scores in the ESPB group and RLB group were significantly lower than those in the control group; the scores were significantly lower in RLB group than in ESPB group ( < 0.05). Compared with that in the control group, sufentanil consumption during the operation and PCIA were significantly decreased in both ESPB and RLB groups, particularly in the latter group ( < 0.05). Two patients experienced nausea and vomiting and 1 patient complained of pruritus in control group; 1 patient had over sedation and 1 had urinary retention in ESPB group; 1 patient had urinary retention in RLB group.
CONCLUSIONS:Ultrasound-guided RLB has better analgesic effect than ESPB for management of perioperative pain following posterior lumbar surgery.
