Bilateral ultrasound-guided erector spinae plane block for postoperative pain relief in major traumatic spine surgery: A randomized controlled trial

• Published in: Saudi journal of anaesthesia 2024-07, Vol.18 (3), p.352-359
• Main Authors: Pegu, Baby, Gupta, Babita, Ayub, Arshad
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: analgesia; erector spinae plane block; Original; traumatic spine fracture
• ISSN: 1658-354X; 0975-3125
• DOI: 10.4103/sja.sja_694_23

Spine fixation surgery for traumatic vertebral fractures is associated with severe pain and is often difficult to control. Traditionally systemic opioids have been the mainstay of analgesia for these procedures, which can lead to hyperalgesia, nausea, ileus, sedation, cognitive impairment, dependence, etc., limiting usage of opioids. The Erector spinae plane block (ESPB) is a novel ultrasound-guided procedure with easily identifiable sonoanatomy. We hypothesized that a multimodal approach involving ESPB to a conventional analgesic regimen with local infiltration for patients undergoing major traumatic spine surgeries might provide better perioperative analgesia and reduce the need for postoperative opioid requirements. A randomized control prospective trial was conducted on 34 ASA grade I -II patients aged 18 to 65 years who were scheduled to undergo elective posterior spine fixation surgery with ASIA B to E after traumatic spine fracture under general anesthesia. Patients were randomized to Group A which included patients who received general anesthesia with ESPB, and Group B, or the control group, included patients who received general anesthesia with systemic analgesics and postoperative local infiltration without ESPB. Intraoperative total fentanyl consumption, VAS score at 0, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 hours, time to activate patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) pump, total morphine consumption, and opioid-related side effects were monitored and compared in both groups. Postoperative PCA morphine consumption was significantly lower in group A patients who received ESPB than those in the control group (17.06 ± 9.59 vs 37.82 ± 9.88 value =