Articles Vol. 64 No. 2 15/03/2023

5. ERECTOR SPINAE PLANE BLOCK FOR PERIOPERATIVE ANALGESIA IN RENAL TRANSPLANTATION WITH ULTRASOUND

Ngo Manh Dinh1,2, Luu Quang Thuy1,2, Trinh Van Dong3,4
1 Viet Duc University Hospital
2 Bệnh Viện Hữu Nghị Việt Đức
3 Hanoi Medical University
4 Trường Đại học Y Hà Nội
Corresponding author: manhdinh.ngo@gmail.com
DOI: 10.52163/yhc.v64i2.607
15 Views
9 Downloads
Keywords
ESP, erector spinae plane block, analgesia, renal transplant.
Abstract

Objectives: Evaluation of the analgesia perioperative renal transplant of erector spinae plane (ESP)
compared with PCA analgesia (patient-controlled analgesia) and adverse effects. Materials and
Methods: A study on 60 patients with indications for kidney transplant surgery at the Center for
Surgical Anesthesia - Viet Duc Hospital, randomly distributed into 2 groups of ESP and a control
group. Results: Age, height, weight, BMI, diagnosis, ASA, drug dosage and anesthetic method had
no difference between the two groups of ESP and PCA with p > 0.05. The time for the ESP group to
first require analgesia in the group was 5.7 ± 2.45 hours, 1.76 ± 0.31 hours longer than the PCA group
alone. 24-hour morphine consumption of ESP 5.8 ± 3.5mg compared with PCA alone: 13.3± 6.5mg
statistically significant difference with p < 0.05. VAS scores at rest and movement of the group under
anesthesia decreased statistically. Conclusion: ESP is an effective method of pain relief during and
after surgery, reducing the dose of morphine and reducing the amount of morphine consumption. It
is recommended to apply to enhance the effectiveness of postoperative pain relief.

References
[1]
Abu Elyazed MM, Mostafa SF, Abdelghany MS Google Scholar
[2]
et al., Ultrasound-Guided Erector Spinae Plane Google Scholar
[3]
Block in Patients Undergoing Open Epigastric Google Scholar
[4]
Hernia Repair: A Prospective Randomized Google Scholar
[5]
Controlled Study. Anesth Analg. 2019;129(1):235- Google Scholar
[6]
doi:10.1213/ANE.0000000000004071. Google Scholar
[7]
Chin KJ, Lirk P, Hollmann MW et al., Mechanisms Google Scholar
[8]
of action of fascial plane blocks: a narrative Google Scholar
[9]
review. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2021;46(7):618- Google Scholar
[10]
doi:10.1136/rapm-2020-102305. Google Scholar
[11]
Chin KJ, Adhikary S, Sarwani N et al., The Google Scholar
[12]
analgesic efficacy of pre-operative bilateral Google Scholar
[13]
erector spinae plane (ESP) blocks in patients Google Scholar
[14]
having ventral hernia repair. Anaesthesia. Google Scholar
[15]
;72(4):452-460. doi:10.1111/anae.13814 Google Scholar
[16]
Cui Y, Wang Y, Yang J et al., The Effect of Google Scholar
[17]
Single-Shot Erector Spinae Plane Block (ESPB) Google Scholar
[18]
on Opioid Consumption for Various Surgeries: A Google Scholar
[19]
Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Google Scholar
[20]
J Pain Res. 2022;15:683-699. doi:10.2147/JPR. Google Scholar
[21]
S346809 Google Scholar
[22]
Fu J, Zhang G, Qiu Y, Erector spinae plane Google Scholar
[23]
block for postoperative pain and recovery in Google Scholar
[24]
hepatectomy: A randomized controlled trial. Google Scholar
[25]
Medicine (Baltimore). 2020;99(41):e22251. Google Scholar
[26]
doi:10.1097/MD.0000000000022251. Google Scholar
[27]
Hamed MA, Goda AS, Basiony MM et al., Google Scholar
[28]
Erector spinae plane block for postoperative Google Scholar
[29]
analgesia in patients undergoing total abdominal Google Scholar
[30]
hysterectomy: a randomized controlled study Google Scholar
[31]
original study. J Pain Res. 2019;Volume 12:1393- Google Scholar
[32]
doi:10.2147/JPR.S196501 Google Scholar
[33]
Huang J, Liu JC, Ultrasound-guided erector Google Scholar
[34]
spinae plane block for postoperative analgesia: Google Scholar
[35]
a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Google Scholar
[36]
BMC Anesthesiol. 2020;20:83. doi:10.1186/ Google Scholar
[37]
s12871-020-00999-8 Google Scholar
[38]
Viderman D, Aubakirova M, Abdildin YG, Erector Google Scholar
[39]
Spinae Plane Block in Abdominal Surgery: A Google Scholar
[40]
Meta-Analysis. Front Med. 2022;9:812531. Google Scholar
[41]
doi:10.3389/fmed.2022.812531 Google Scholar