Dataset Information

Erector spinae plane block for spinal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Although the erector spinae plane block has been used in various truncal surgical procedures, its clinical benefits in patients undergoing spinal surgery remain controversial. The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the clinical benefits of erector spinae plane block in patients undergoing spinal surgery.

Methods

We searched the Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure for randomized controlled trials comparing the erector spinae plane block with a nonblocked control for spinal surgery.

Results

Twelve studies encompassing 696 subjects were included in our systematic review and meta-analysis. We found that the erector spinae plane block decreased postoperative pain scores and opioid consumption in the postoperative and intraoperative periods. Moreover, it prolonged the time to the first rescue analgesic, reduced the number of patients who required rescue analgesia, and lowered the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting. However, it did not exhibit efficacy in decreasing the incidence of urinary retention and itching or shortening the length of hospital stays, or the time to first ambulation.

Conclusions

Erector spinae plane block improves analgesic efficacy among patients undergoing spinal surgery compared with nonblocked controls; however, there is insufficient evidence regarding the benefits of erector spinae plane block for rapid recovery.

SUBMITTER: Liang X

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8494958 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundParavertebral block (PVB) is the most recognized regional anesthesia technique after thoracic epidural anesthesia for postoperative analgesia in thoracic and breast surgery. Erector spinae plane block (ESPB) is a recently discovered blocking technique, and it has evidenced excellent postoperative analgesia for breast and thoracic surgery with fewer adverse reactions. However, there are controversies about the postoperative analgesic effects of the two analgesic techniques.ObjectiveTo assess the analgesic effects of PVB versus ESPB in postoperative thoracic and breast surgery.MethodsWe systematically searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Web of Science, and ScienceDirect databases up to April 5, 2021. The primary outcome was postoperative pain scores. Secondary outcomes included: opioid consumption, additional analgesia, postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) 24 hours post-operation, and the time required for completing block procedure. This study was registered in PROSPERO, number CRD42021246160.ResultsAfter screening relevant, full-text articles, ten randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that met the inclusion criteria were retrieved for this meta-analysis. Six studies involved thoracic surgery patients, and four included breast surgery patients. Thoracic surgery studies included all of the outcomes involved in this meta-analysis while breast surgery did not report pain scores at movement and additional analgesia in 24 hours post-operation. For thoracic surgery, PVB resulted in significant reduction in the following pain scores: 0-1 hours (MD = -0.79, 95% CI: -1.54 to -0.03, P = 0.04), 4-6 hours (MD = -0.31, 95% CI: -0.57 to -0.05, P = 0.02), and 24 hours (MD = -0.42, 95% CI: -0.81 to -0.02, P = 0.04) at rest; significant reduction in pain scores at 4-6 hours (MD = -0.47, 95% CI: -0.93 to -0.01, P = 0.04), 8-12 hours (MD = -1.09, 95% CI: -2.13 to -0.04, P = 0.04), and 24 hours (MD = -0.31, 95% CI: -0.57 to -0.06, P = 0.01) at movement. Moreover, the opioid consumption at 24 hours post-operation (MD = -2.74, 95% CI: -5.41 to -0.07, P = 0.04) and the incidence of additional analgesia in 24 hours of the postoperative course (RR: 0.53, 95% CI: 0.29 to 0.97, P = 0.04) were significantly lower in the PVB group than in the ESPB group for thoracic surgery. However, no significant differences were found in pain scores at rest at various time points postoperatively, and opioid consumption at 24 hours post-operation for breast surgery. The time required for completing block procedure was longer in the PVB group than in the ESPB group for thoracic and breast surgery, and the incidence of PONV between the two groups showed no significant difference.ConclusionThe postoperative analgesic effects of PVB versus ESPB are distinguished by the surgical site. For thoracic surgery, the postoperative analgesic effect of PVB is better than that of ESPB. For breast surgery, the postoperative analgesic effects of PVB and ESPB are similar.

Project description:BackgroundAlthough laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is a minimally invasive surgery, it can cause moderate to severe postoperative pain. Erector spinae plane (ESP) and transversus abdominis plane (TAP) blocks are considered effective means for pain management in such cases; however, there is inconclusive evidence regarding their analgesic efficacy. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy of ESP block and TAP block for pain control in LC.MethodsWe systematically searched Medline, PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Google Scholar until 26 January 2024. All randomized clinical trials compared the efficacy of erector spinae plane block (ESPB) and transversus abdominis plane block (TAPB) for postoperative pain relief after LC. The primary outcomes were pain scores at rest and on movement at 1, 2, 6, 12, and 24 h postoperatively. The secondary outcomes were total opioid consumption, first analgesia request time, and rates of postoperative nausea and vomiting. We analyzed all the data using RevMan 5.4.ResultsA total of 8 RCTs, involving 542 patients (271 in the ESPB group and 271 in the TAPB group), were included in the analysis. The ESP block demonstrated statistically significant lower pain scores at rest and on movement than the TAP block at all-time points except at the 1st and 6th h on movement postoperatively; however, these differences were not considered clinically significant. Additionally, patients who received the ESP block required less morphine and had a longer time before requesting their first dose of analgesia. There were no significant differences in postoperative nausea and vomiting incidence between the two groups.ConclusionIn patients undergoing LC, there is moderate evidence to suggest that the ESP block is effective in reducing pain severity, morphine equivalent consumption, and the time before the first analgesia request when compared to the TAP block during the early postoperative period.Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42024505635, https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42024505635.