Lumbar Spinal Stenosis, Lumbar Spine Degeneration, Lumbar Spine Instability
Conditions
Keywords
Erector Spinae Plane Block, Wound Infiltration, Postoperative Analgesia, Lumbar Spinal Surgery, Ultrasound-Guided Anesthesia, Postoperative Pain, Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS)
Brief summary
This study aimed to compare the efficacy of ultrasound-guided erector spinae plane block (ESPB) with that of wound infiltration (WI) for postoperative analgesia in lumbar spinal surgeries involving instrumentation.
Detailed description
In this randomized controlled trial, 80 patients were divided into two groups: ESPB (n=40) and WI (n=40). Postoperative pain intensity was assessed using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) at multiple time points within 24 hours. Additionally, opioid consumption, time to first rescue analgesia, incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), and patient satisfaction were evaluated.
Interventions
ESPB was administered preoperatively under ultrasound guidance via a high-frequency linear probe (Sonosite M-Turbo, Fujifilm Sonosite Inc., USA) (Figure 1). The procedure was as follows: 1. Patient Positioning: The patient was positioned in the lateral decubitus position, with the side to be blocked uppermost. 2. Ultrasound Setup: A high-frequency linear ultrasound probe was placed in a parasagittal orientation over the transverse process of the lumbar vertebra at the level of surgery. 3. Needle Insertion: After skin disinfection with chlorhexidine, a 22-gauge, 100-mm needle (Stimuplex A, B. Braun Melsungen AG, Germany) was inserted in-plane to the ultrasound probe. The needle was advanced until the tip contacted the transverse process. 4. Injection: Following negative aspiration to ensure no vascular puncture, 20 mL of 0.5% bupivacaine was injected incrementally, with real-time ultrasound visualization to confirm the correct spread of the anesthetic solution.
Wound infiltration was performed by the surgeon at the end of the surgery via the following procedure: 1. Preparation: After hemostasis was achieved and before skin closure, 20 mL of 0.5% bupivacaine was prepared in a sterile syringe. 2. For infiltration, the anesthetic mixture was infiltrated into multiple layers of the surgical wound. This included the subcutaneous tissue and muscle layers, ensuring the even distribution of the anesthetic solution to cover the entire surgical area.
Sponsors
Study design
Masking description
Randomization and Blinding A computer-generated random number sequence was used for randomization. Allocation was concealed via sealed, opaque envelopes, which were opened just before the intervention. Both the patients and the outcome assessors were blinded to the group assignments. The anesthesiologist who administered the block was aware of the group allocation but did not participate in the postoperative assessments.
Intervention model description
Participants Eligible participants were adults aged 18-70 years who were scheduled for elective lumbar spinal surgery with instrumentation. The inclusion criteria were as follows: * Elective lumbar spine surgery involving instrumentation * ASA physical status I-III * Ability to provide informed consent The exclusion criteria were as follows: * Known allergies to local anesthetics * Coagulopathy or anticoagulant therapy * Infection at the injection site * Preexisting neurological disorders affecting sensory perception * Pregnancy * Inability to understand the visual analog scale (VAS) for pain assessment The participants were randomly allocated into one of two groups: the ESPB group (Group E) or the WI group (Group W).
Eligibility
Inclusion criteria
* Elective lumbar spine surgery involving instrumentation * ASA physical status I-III * Ability to provide informed consent
Exclusion criteria
* Known allergies to local anesthetics * Coagulopathy or anticoagulant therapy * Infection at the injection site * Preexisting neurological disorders affecting sensory perception * Pregnancy * Inability to understand the visual analog scale (VAS) for pain assessment
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Postoperative pain intensity | 1., 6., 12., 24., and 48. hours postoperatively | The pain intensity was assessed via the visual analog scale (VAS).The VAS is a 10 cm scale ranging from 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst imaginable pain). |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Total Opioid Consumption | In the first 48 hours postoperatively | Recorded as morphine equivalents |
| Time to first request for rescue analgesia | Noted in hours in the first 48 hours postoperatively | Noted in hours postoperatively |
| Incidence of Side Effects | Recorded as binary outcomes (present/absent) in the first 48 hours postoperatively | Including nausea, vomiting, pruritus, and urinary retention, |
| Patient Satisfaction with Pain Management | At 48 hours postoperatively | Patient satisfaction was assessed via a 5-point Likert scale (1 = very dissatisfied, 5 = very satisfied) |
Countries
Turkey (Türkiye)