BACKGROUND:
Epidural block are often used for analgesia after open nephrectomy surgery. Subcostal anterior quadratus lumborum block may be an alternative. We therefore tested the hypothesis that the continuous subcostal anterior quadratus lumborum block is noninferior to epidural block for analgesia in patients having open partial nephrectomies.
METHODS:
Adults having open partial nephrectomies were randomly allocated to epidural or unilateral subcostal anterior quadratus lumborum block. The joint primary outcomes were opioid consumption measured in morphine equivalents and pain measured on a numeric rating scale (0–10) from postanesthesia care unit (PACU) until 72 hours after surgery. The noninferiority deltas were 30% for opioid consumption and 1 point on a 0–10 scale for pain. Secondary outcomes included patient global assessment of pain management on the third postoperative day, the number of antiemetic medication doses through the third postoperative day, duration of PACU stay, and postoperative duration of hospitalization.
RESULTS:
Twenty-six patients were randomized to anterior quadratus lumborum block and 29 to epidural analgesia. Neither pain scores nor opioid consumption in the quadratus lumborum patients were noninferior to epidural analgesia. At 72 hours, mean ± standard deviation pain scores in subcoastal anterior quadratus lumborum block and epidural group were 4.7 ± 1.8 and 4.1 ± 1.7, with an estimated difference in pain scores of 0.62 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.74-1.99; noninferiority P = .21). The median [Q1, Q3] opioid consumption was more than doubled in quadratus lumborum patients at 70 mg [43, 125] versus 30 mg [18, 75] in the epidural group with an estimated ratio of geometric means of 1.69 (95% CI, 0.66-4.33; noninferiority P = .80). Patient global assessment and duration of PACU and hospital stays did not differ significantly in the 2 groups.
CONCLUSIONS:
We were unable to show that subcostal anterior quadratus lumborum block are noninferior to epidural analgesia in terms of pain scores and opioid consumption for open partial nephrectomies. Effectiveness of novel blocks should be rigorously tested in specific surgical setting before widespread adoption.
Context:Various adjuvants are being used with local anesthetics for prolongation of intraoperative and postoperative analgesia. The α2-adrenergic agonist clonidine and potent opioid buprenorphine have the ability to potentiate the effects of local anesthetics.Aims:The purpose of this prospective, double-blind study was to compare onset, duration of sensory and motor block, effect on hemodynamics, level of sedation, duration of postoperative analgesia, and any adverse effects of clonidine and buprenorphine.Settings and Design:Seventy-five American Society of Anesthesiologists Class I and II patients undergoing lower limb surgery under spinal anesthesia were randomly allocated into three Groups A, B, and C.Subjects and Methods:Control Group A received injection bupivacaine 0.5% (heavy) 2.5 ml + saline 0.5 ml whereas Group B received injection bupivacaine 0.5% (heavy) 2.5 ml + injection buprenorphine 50 μg and Group C received injection bupivacaine 0.5% (heavy) 2.5 ml + preservative free injection clonidine 50 μg intrathecally.Statistical Analysis Used:Unpaired Student's t-test and Z-test were used for comparing data.Results:Statistically highly significant differences in mean time of sensory regression to L1, mean time to attain the Bromage Score of 1, and mean time of first rescue analgesic request were observed between the three groups. The patients did not suffer any serious side effects.Conclusion:Administration of buprenorphine and clonidine intrathecally does potentiate the duration of analgesia, sensory and motor block, with buprenorphine having a long-lasting effect.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.