Rib fractures are a common sequelae of chest trauma and are associated with significant morbidity. The erector spinae nerve block (ESB) has been proposed as an alternative first-line regional technique for rib fractures due to ease of administration and minimal complication profile. We aimed to investigate the current literature surrounding this topic with a focus on pain and respiratory outcomes. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was performed on the Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane databases. Keywords of "erector spinae block" and "rib fractures" were used to form the search strategy. Papers published in English investigating ESB as an analgesic intervention for acute rib fracture were included. Exclusion criteria were operative rib fixation, or where the indication for ESB was not rib fracture. Results: There were 37 studies which met the inclusion criteria for this scoping review. Of these, 31 studies reported on pain outcomes and demonstrated a 40% decrease in pain scores post administration within the first 24 hours. Respiratory parameters were reported in 8 studies where an increase in incentive spirometry was demonstrated. Respiratory complication was not consistently reported. ESB was associated with minimal complications; only 5 cases of haematoma and infection were (incidence 0.6%) reported, none of which required further intervention. Discussion: Current literature surrounding ESB in rib fracture management provides a positive qualitative evaluation of efficacy and safety. Improvements in pain and respiratory parameters were almost universal. The notable outcome from this review was the improved safety profile of ESB. The ESB was not associated with complications requiring intervention even in the setting of anticoagulation and coagulopathy. There still remains a paucity of large cohort, prospective data. Moreover, no current studies reflect an improvement in respiratory complication rates compared to current techniques. Taken together, these areas should be the focus of any future research.

Background Surgical approach is the most effective treatment for primary spontaneous pneumothorax. The two most widely adopted surgical methods are mechanical abrasion and apical pleurectomy, in addition to bullectomy. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine which technique is superior in treating primary spontaneous pneumothorax. Methods PubMed, MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched for studies published between January 2000 to September 2022 comparing mechanical abrasion and apical pleurectomy for treatment of primary spontaneous pneumothorax. The primary outcome was pneumothorax recurrence. Secondary outcomes included post-operative chest tube duration, hospital length of stay, operative time and intra-operative of blood loss. Results Eight studies were eligible for inclusion involving 1,613 patients. There was no difference in the rate of pneumothorax recurrence between pleural abrasion and pleurectomy (RR: 1.34; 95% CI: 0.94 to 1.92). However, pleural abrasion led to shorter hospital length of stay (MD: -0.25; 95% CI: -0.51 to 0.00), post-operative chest tube duration (MD: -0.30; 95% CI: -0.56 to -0.03), operative time (MD: -13.00; 95% CI -15.07 to 10.92) and less surgical blood loss (MD: -17.77; 95% CI: -24.36 to -11.18). Conclusion Pleural abrasion leads to less perioperative patient burden and shorter hospital length of stay without compromising the rate of pneumothorax recurrence when compared to pleurectomy. Thus, pleural abrasion is a reasonable first choice surgical procedure for management of primary spontaneous pneumothorax.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract