Loading…

Effects of ultrasound-guided erector spinae plane block on postoperative analgesia and plasma cytokine levels after uniportal VATS: a prospective randomized controlled trial

Purpose Although uniportal video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) has been widely used, the associated postoperative pain is still severe. Currently, a variety of regional anesthesia methods have been used to relieve postoperative pain. In our study, we wanted to evaluate the effectiveness of u...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of anesthesia 2021-02, Vol.35 (1), p.3-9
Main Authors: Liu, Lin, Ni, Xin-xin, Zhang, Ling-wei, Zhao, Kai, Xie, Hong, Zhu, Jiang
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Purpose Although uniportal video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) has been widely used, the associated postoperative pain is still severe. Currently, a variety of regional anesthesia methods have been used to relieve postoperative pain. In our study, we wanted to evaluate the effectiveness of ultrasound-guided erector spinae plane block (ESPB) as a postoperative analgesia after uniportal VATS. Methods Eighty patients scheduled to undergo uniportal VATS were randomly divided into Group ESP and Group C. In Group ESP, the patients underwent ultrasound-guided ESPB under general anesthesia before surgery, while Group C was set as blank control group without ESPB. The primary outcome was the sufentanil dose within 24 h after surgery. The secondary outcomes mainly included postoperative pain scores at 2, 4, 8, and 24 h evaluated using a numeric rating scale (NRS), intraoperative opioid dosage, levels of inflammatory cytokines, including tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α), interleukin-6 (IL-6), and interleukin-10 (IL-10) in the plasma, side effect profile, and length of postoperative hospital stay. Results Postoperative sufentanil consumption (32.5 ± 6.3 μg vs. 42.8 ± 7.6 μg, P  
ISSN:0913-8668
1438-8359
DOI:10.1007/s00540-020-02848-x