Articles Vol. 65 No. CĐ 9 - Hội Gây mê Hồi sức 26/09/2024

35. EVALUATION OF THE ANALGESIC EFFECT OF ERECTOR SPINAE PLANE BLOCK IN VIDEO ASSISTED THORACOSCOPIC SURGERY FOR LUNG RESECTION

Nguyen Van Thang1,2,3,4, Ngo Gia Khanh2,4, Nguyen Toan Thang1,2,3,4
1 Hanoi Medical University
2 Bach Mai Hospital
3 Trường Đại học Y Hà Nội
4 Bệnh viện Bạch Mai
Corresponding author: nguyentoanthang@hmu.edu.vn
DOI: 10.52163/yhc.v65iCD9.1549
17 Views
7 Downloads
Abstract

Objectives: The study aimed to evaluate the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of erector spinae plane block in video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery for lung resection.

Subjects and methods: From July 2023 to September 2024, a cross-sectional descriptive study included 30 patients with indications for video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery for lung resection who received analgesia using unilateral erector spine plane block with catheter insertion at Bach Mai Hospital. When the VAS score was above 4, Ketorolac was added and Morphine titrated as necessary. The primary outcome was VAS pain score (from 0 to 10) at rest and during movement. Some adverse effects were assessed and recorded.

Results: The mean VAS scores at rest and during movement at most assessment points in the 72 hours after surgery were below 4 (2.03 ± 0.63 points and 2.76 ± 0.58 points at the 24th hour; 1.97 ± 0.63 points and 2.52 ± 0.51 points at the 48th hour, respectively). Ten patients required ketorolac, and eight patients (26.67%) required morphine titration (mean 541.67 ± 144.34 mcg). There were no serious complications related to the erector spine plane block in this study.

Conclusion: Erector spine plane block provides good pain relief after video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery for lung resection, and no serious complications related to this technique were recorded.

References
[1]
Chitnis SS, Tang R, Mariano ER, The role of regional analgesia in personalized postoperative pain management, Korean J Anesthesiol, 2020, 73(5), p. 363-371. Google Scholar
[2]
De Cassai A et al, Erector spinae plane block: a systematic qualitative review, Minerva Anestesiol, 2019, 85(3), p. 308-319. Google Scholar
[3]
Huang J, Liu JC, Ultrasound-guided erector spinae plane block for postoperative analgesia: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, BMC Anesthesiol, 2020, 20(1), p. 83. Google Scholar
[4]
Viderman D, Aubakirova M, Abdildin YG, Erector Spinae Plane Block in Abdominal Surgery: A Meta-Analysis, Front Med (Lausanne), 2022, 9, Google Scholar
[5]
p. 812531. Google Scholar
[6]
Krishna SN et al, Bilateral Erector Spinae Plane Block for Acute Post-Surgical Pain in Adult Cardiac Surgical Patients: A Randomized Controlled Trial, J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth, 2019, 33(2), p. 368-375. Google Scholar
[7]
Cui Y et a., The Effect of Single-Shot Erector Spinae Plane Block (ESPB) on Opioid Consumption for Various Surgeries: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials, J Pain Res, 2022, 15, p. 683-699. Google Scholar
[8]
Trần Công Quyền, Hiệu quả điều trị ung thư phổi bằng phẫu thuật cắt thùy phổi qua nội soi, Tạp chí Y học thành phố Hồ Chí Minh, 2018, Google Scholar
[9]
(2), p. 226-231. Google Scholar
[10]
Abu Elyazed MM et al, Ultrasound-Guided Erector Spinae Plane Block in Patients Undergoing Open Epigastric Hernia Repair: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Study, Anesth Analg, 2019, 129(1), p. 235-240. Google Scholar
[11]
Hamed MA et al, Erector spinae plane block for postoperative analgesia in patients undergoing total abdominal hysterectomy: a randomized controlled study original study, J Pain Res, 2019, 12, p. 1393-1398. Google Scholar
[12]
Fu J, Zhang G, Qiu Y, Erector spinae plane block for postoperative pain and recovery in hepatectomy: A randomized controlled trial, Medicine (Baltimore), 2020, 99(41), p. e22251. Google Scholar
[13]
Ngô Mạnh Dinh, Đánh giá hiệu quả giảm đau trong cà sau phẫu thuật ghép thận của gây tê mặt phẳng cơ dựng sống dưới hướng dẫn của siêu âm, Trường Đại học Y Hà Nội, Hà Nội, 2015. Google Scholar
[14]
Tsui BCH et al, The erector spinae plane (ESP) block: A pooled review of 242 cases, J Clin Anesth, 2019, 53, p. 29-34. Google Scholar