Comparative randomized study of continuous serratus anterior plane block versus continuous paravertebral block in post-mastectomy pain

Background Many analgesic methods have been used to control post-mastectomy pain. Both thoracic paravertebral and serratus anterior blocks are recent regional techniques with promising results. The aim of this study was to compare safety and analgesic efficacy of both techniques in controlling post-...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Ain-Shams journal of anesthesiology 2020-10, Vol.12 (1), p.1-5, Article 45
Hauptverfasser: Mahran, Essam, Adlan, Suzan, Alieldeen, Nelly
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Background Many analgesic methods have been used to control post-mastectomy pain. Both thoracic paravertebral and serratus anterior blocks are recent regional techniques with promising results. The aim of this study was to compare safety and analgesic efficacy of both techniques in controlling post-mastectomy pain. Methods The study was conducted from January 1, 2019, till January 10, 2019, on 60 female patients ASA class ≤ 2 undergoing modified radical mastectomy. After induction of balanced general anesthesia patients received either continuous thoracic paravertebral block (group P) or continuous serratus anterior block (group S). Twenty milliliters of levobupivacaine 0.25% were injected in each technique under ultrasound guidance followed by continuous infusion of 5 ml/h levobupivacaine 0.125% through a 22-gage catheter. IV morphine was given postoperatively by patient-controlled analgesia. In both groups, we measured time to first dose morphine, total 24 and 48 h morphine consumption, vital signs, visual analog scale, and side effects of each technique. Results The demographic data (age, body mass index, and duration of surgery) were comparable in both groups. The time for first dose of morphine was significantly longer in group P (368 ± 36 min) than group S (270 ± 37.65 min) with P value
ISSN:2090-925X
1687-7934
2090-925X
DOI:10.1186/s42077-020-00091-w