Ultrasound-guided erector spinae plane block versus thoracic epidural block for postoperative analgesia in pediatric Nuss surgery: a randomized noninferiority trial

Purpose Thoracic epidural anesthesia (TEA) is often used for analgesia after thoracic surgery. Erector spinae plane block (ESPB) has been proposed to provide adequate analgesia. We hypothesized that ESPB would be noninferior to TEA as a part of multimodal analgesia in pediatric patients undergoing t...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of anesthesia 2024-10, Vol.38 (5), p.600-608
Hauptverfasser: Ren, Yi, Nie, Xiaolu, Zhang, Fuzhou, Ma, Yangwei, Hua, Lei, Zheng, Tiehua, Xu, Zenghua, Gao, Jia, Zhang, Jianmin
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Purpose Thoracic epidural anesthesia (TEA) is often used for analgesia after thoracic surgery. Erector spinae plane block (ESPB) has been proposed to provide adequate analgesia. We hypothesized that ESPB would be noninferior to TEA as a part of multimodal analgesia in pediatric patients undergoing the Nuss procedure. Methods Patients aged 7–18 years and scheduled for the Nuss procedure were randomly allocated to receive bilateral single-shot ESPB or TEA and a multimodal analgesic regimen including parent-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA). At 6 h, 12 h, 18 h, and 24 h postoperatively, pain was evaluated using the numeric rating scale (NRS) and opioid consumption was assessed by counting the number of PCIA boluses. The joint primary outcomes were the average pain score and opioid consumption at 24 h after surgery. The secondary outcomes were the NRS scores and the number of opioid boluses administered at different postoperative time points, adverse events, and recovery quality. Results Three hundred patients underwent randomization, and 286 received ESPB (147 patients) or TEA (139 patients). At 24 h postoperatively, ESPB was noninferior to TEA in terms of the average NRS score (mean difference, − 0.1, 95% confidence interval [CI], − 0.3–0.1, margin = 1, P for noninferiority 
ISSN:0913-8668
1438-8359
1438-8359
DOI:10.1007/s00540-024-03354-0