Search

Abstract Introduction There is a sizable niche for a minimally invasive analgesic technique that could facilitate ambulatory video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS). Our study aimed to determine the analgesic potential of a single-shot erector spinae plane (ESP) block for VATS. The primary objective was the total hydromorphone consumption with patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) 24 h after surgery. Methods We conducted a randomized, controlled, double-blind study with patients scheduled for VATS in two major university-affiliated hospital centres. We randomized 52 patients into two groups: a single-shot ESP block using bupivacaine or an ESP block with normal saline (control). We administered a preoperative and postoperative (24 h) quality of recovery (QoR-15) questionnaire and assessed postoperative pain using a verbal numerical rating scale (VNRS) score. We evaluated the total standardized intraoperative fentanyl administration, total postoperative hydromorphone consumption (PCA; primary endpoint), and the incidence of adverse effects. Results There was no difference in the primary objective, hydromorphone consumption at 24 h (7.6 (4.4) mg for the Bupivacaine group versus 8.1 (4.2) mg for the Control group). Secondary objectives and incidence of adverse events were not different between the two groups at any time during the first 24 h following surgery. Conclusion Our multi-centre randomized, controlled, double-blinded study found no advantage of an ESP block over placebo for VATS for opioid consumption, pain, or QoR-15 scores. Further studies are ongoing to establish the benefits of using a denser block (single-shot paravertebral with a continuous ESP block), which may provide a better quality of analgesia.

Introduction: There is a sizable niche for a minimally invasive analgesic technique that could facilitate ambulatory video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS). Our study aimed to determine the analgesic potential of a single-shot erector spinae plane (ESP) block for VATS. The primary objective was the total hydromorphone consumption with patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) 24 h after surgery., Methods: We conducted a randomized, controlled, double-blind study with patients scheduled for VATS in two major university-affiliated hospital centres. We randomized 52 patients into two groups: a single-shot ESP block using bupivacaine or an ESP block with normal saline (control). We administered a preoperative and postoperative (24 h) quality of recovery (QoR-15) questionnaire and assessed postoperative pain using a verbal numerical rating scale (VNRS) score. We evaluated the total standardized intraoperative fentanyl administration, total postoperative hydromorphone consumption (PCA; primary endpoint), and the incidence of adverse effects., Results: There was no difference in the primary objective, hydromorphone consumption at 24 h (7.6 (4.4) mg for the Bupivacaine group versus 8.1 (4.2) mg for the Control group). Secondary objectives and incidence of adverse events were not different between the two groups at any time during the first 24 h following surgery., Conclusion: Our multi-centre randomized, controlled, double-blinded study found no advantage of an ESP block over placebo for VATS for opioid consumption, pain, or QoR-15 scores. Further studies are ongoing to establish the benefits of using a denser block (single-shot paravertebral with a continuous ESP block), which may provide a better quality of analgesia., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: The impact of the anesthesia management during cytoreductive surgery (CRS) plus hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) for the treatment of colorectal peritoneal carcinomatosis (CRPC) on postoperative outcomes might be of major importance in the process of postoperative recovery. It might have a significant impact on intra- and postoperative outcomes, but the evaluation of this impact seems to be under-reported. To investigate the question whether the anesthesia management was reported in previous studies done in this population and if it had any impact on postoperative outcomes, we propose to conduct a systematic review of the published literature., Methods: For this review, we will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols (PRISMA-P). Medline/PubMed, Embase, EBM Reviews and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) will be systematically consulted for eligible studies without age, gender, ethnic, and language restriction. The goal of this review will be to assess whether anesthesia monitoring, dosing, and analgesia protocols were reported in this literature on this specific procedure and whether the impact of the anesthesia management on intraoperative safety and postoperative recovery was evaluated., Results: The results of this systematic review will allow to answer the initial question: has the impact of anesthesia management on intraoperative safety and patients' postoperative recovery already been studied and reported in the past for this type of major surgery? And does anesthesia have any impact on postoperative outcomes?, Discussion: In the hypothesis that the impact of anesthesia management on patients' postoperative recovery has never been studied, or very little reported in previous studies in this type of major surgery, it would be justified to conduct a randomized controlled trial on this specific objective., Registration: This systematic review protocol was registered in PROSPERO, under the registration number CRD42019124162.