Erector spinae plane block unbound: Limits to safety in a patient with laminectomy

Tseng, Victor; Tara, Arjun; Hou, Jian; Xu, Jeff L

doi:10.4103/sja.sja_186_19

Cited by 7 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…10,29 The local anesthetics injected during ESPB spread widely and could produce the effect of a paraspinal block; therefore, the block range was wide and could last until a period of time after operation. 14,30,31 However, there are few studies on ESPB for postoperative analgesia of lumbar spinae surgery patients. 32 Therefore, it is necessary to summarize the relevant clinical studies.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

<p>Erector Spinae Plane Block for Lumbar Spinal Surgery: A Systematic Review</p>

Qiu

Zhang

Hua

2020

JPR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Erector spinae plane block (ESPB) as a new trunk fascia block technique was proposed in 2016. ESPB has aroused the interest of many nerve block experts. However, there are few clinical studies on ESPB for lumbar surgery, and its effectiveness and safety are controversial. The goal of this review is to summarize the use of ESPB for lumbar spine surgery in order to better understand this technique. Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane library and ClinicalTrial.gov databases were searched up to July 30, 2019. According to the inclusion and exclusion criteria established in advance, "lumbar spine surgery" and "ESPB" related MesH terms and free-text words were used. Data on pain scores, analgesic consumptions and adverse effects were reported. All processes follow PRISMA statement guidelines. Results: A total of 171 participants from 11 publications were identified, including two randomized controlled trials (RCTs), one retrospective cohort study, four case reports and four cases series. Block operation planes from T8 to L4. The main anesthetics used in the block are bupivacaine, ropivacaine and lidocaine. There was evidence for reducing postoperative pain scores and analgesic consumptions. Conclusion: The effectiveness and safety of ESPB for lumbar spine surgery are still controversial. The current evidence is insufficient to support the widespread use of ESPB for lumbar spine surgery. High-quality RCTs are urgently needed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

<p>Erector Spinae Plane Block for Lumbar Spinal Surgery: A Systematic Review</p>

Qiu

Zhang

Hua

2020

JPR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Ultrasonography guided erector spinae block in spinal surgery for pain management with enhanced recovery: A comparative study

Prabha

Amatya

Pokharel

et al. 2023

World Neurosurgery: X

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Modified Thoracolumbar Interfascial Plane Block Versus Erector Spinae Plane Block in Patients Undergoing Spine Surgeries: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Kumar¹,

Sinha

Kumar

et al. 2023

Journal of Neurosurgical Anesthesiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Lumbar spine surgery is associated with significant postoperative pain. Interfascial plane blocks, such as erector spinae plane (ESP) and thoracolumbar interfascial plane (TLIP) blocks, can play a significant role in multimodal analgesic regimens.Methods: Sixty patients aged 18 to 60 years undergoing elective single or double-level lumbar discectomy or primary lumbar laminoplasty were recruited into this randomized double-blind study. All patients received general anesthesia and were randomly allocated to either modified TLIP (mTLIP) block (group M) or ESP block (group E). Postoperative and intraoperative fentanyl consumption, and postoperative pain scores, were recorded.Results: Total 48 h postoperative fentanyl consumption was higher in Group M (189.66 ± 141.11 µg) than in Group E (124.16 ± 80.83 µg; P = 0.031). In the first 24 postoperative hours, fentanyl consumption was higher in Group M (150.3 ± 120.9 µg) than in group E (89.9 ± 65.3 µg; P = 0.01) but was similar between groups in postoperative hours 24to 48 (39.0 ± 20.2 µg versus 34.7 ± 17.1 µg in group M and group E, respectively; P = 0.37). Additional intraoperative fentanyl requirement was 57.66 ± 21.76 µg in group M compared with 40.33 ± 21.89 µg in group E (P < 0.01). Postoperative pain scores were higher in group M than in group E at 1, 2, 4, 6, 12, and 24 hours postoperatively (P < 0.001), but similar at 48 hours (P = 0.164). Conclusion:Compared with the mTLIP block, the ESP block was associated with lower pain scores and a small decrease in perioperative fentanyl consumption in patients undergoing lumbar spine surgeries. Both blocks could form a part of a multimodal analgesic regimen in spine surgery patients.

show abstract

Erector spinae plane block unbound: Limits to safety in a patient with laminectomy

Cited by 7 publications

References 6 publications

<p>Erector Spinae Plane Block for Lumbar Spinal Surgery: A Systematic Review</p>

<p>Erector Spinae Plane Block for Lumbar Spinal Surgery: A Systematic Review</p>

Ultrasonography guided erector spinae block in spinal surgery for pain management with enhanced recovery: A comparative study

Modified Thoracolumbar Interfascial Plane Block Versus Erector Spinae Plane Block in Patients Undergoing Spine Surgeries: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About