IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v18y2021i7p3625-d527404.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Erector Spinae Plane Block for Perioperative Analgesia after Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy

Author

Listed:
  • Piotr Bryniarski

    (Department of Urology in Zabrze, Faculty of Medical Sciences in Zabrze, Medical University of Silesia in Katowice, 40-055 Katowice, Poland)

  • Szymon Bialka

    (Department of Anaesthesiology, Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medical Sciences in Zabrze, Medical University of Silesia in Katowice, 40-055 Katowice, Poland)

  • Michal Kepinski

    (Department of Urology in Zabrze, Faculty of Medical Sciences in Zabrze, Medical University of Silesia in Katowice, 40-055 Katowice, Poland)

  • Anna Szelka-Urbanczyk

    (Department of Anaesthesiology, Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medical Sciences in Zabrze, Medical University of Silesia in Katowice, 40-055 Katowice, Poland)

  • Andrzej Paradysz

    (Department of Urology in Zabrze, Faculty of Medical Sciences in Zabrze, Medical University of Silesia in Katowice, 40-055 Katowice, Poland)

  • Hanna Misiolek

    (Department of Anaesthesiology, Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medical Sciences in Zabrze, Medical University of Silesia in Katowice, 40-055 Katowice, Poland)

Abstract

Erector spinae plane block was recently introduced as an alternative to postoperative analgesia in surgical procedures including thoracoscopies and mastectomies. There are no clinical trials regarding erector spinae plane block in percutaneous nephrolithotomy. The aim of our study was to test the efficacy and safety of erector spinae plane block after percutaneous nephrolithotomy. We analyzed 68 patients, 34 of whom received erector spinae plane block. The average visual analogue scale score 24 h postoperatively was the primary endpoint. The secondary endpoints were nalbuphine consumption and the need for rescue analgesia. Safety measures included the mean arterial pressure, Ramsey scale score, and rate of nausea and vomiting. The visual analogue scale, blood pressure, and Ramsey scale were assessed simultaneously at 1, 2, 4, 6, 12, and 24 h postoperatively. The average visual analogue scale was 2.9 and 3 ( p = 0.65) in groups 1 (experimental) and 2 (control), respectively. The visual analogue scale after 1 h postoperatively was significantly lower in the erector spinae plane block group (2.3 vs. 3.3; p = 0.01). The average nalbuphine consumption was the same in both groups (46 mL vs. 47.2 mL, p = 0.69). The need for rescue analgesia was insignificantly different in both groups (group 1, 29.4; group 2, 26.4%; p = 1). The mean arterial pressure was similar in both groups postoperatively (91.8 vs. 92.5 mmHg; p = 0.63). The rate of nausea and vomiting was insignificantly different between the groups (group 1, 17.6%; group 2, 14.7%; p = 1). The median Ramsey scale in all the measurements was two. Erector spinae plane block is an effective pain treatment after percutaneous nephrolithotomy but only for a very short postoperative period.

Suggested Citation

  • Piotr Bryniarski & Szymon Bialka & Michal Kepinski & Anna Szelka-Urbanczyk & Andrzej Paradysz & Hanna Misiolek, 2021. "Erector Spinae Plane Block for Perioperative Analgesia after Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(7), pages 1-10, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:7:p:3625-:d:527404
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/7/3625/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/7/3625/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jakub Marek Ratajczak & Anna Gawrońska & Margaret Fischer & Taras Hladun & Michał Marczak, 2022. "Can We Identify Patients in Danger of Delayed Treatment? Management of COVID-19 Pandemic Backlog in Urology Care in Poland," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(24), pages 1-15, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:7:p:3625-:d:527404. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.