Single Injection Nerve Blocks Plus IV Lidocaine Infusions as an Alternative to Continuous Nerve Blocks for Perioperative Pain Management: A retrospective review.

Abstract

Purpose: Continuous nerve blocks (CNBs) and intravenous lidocaine infusions (IV Lido) represent an effective approach to perioperative pain management. We hypothesized that a single injection nerve block (SNB) plus intravenous lidocaine infusion (IV Lido) would be as effective as CNBs. Furthermore, since recently, the use of facial plane blocks are increasingly advocated, we compared CNBs vs SNBs plus IV Lido in patients undergoing erector spinae plane (ESP) and quadratus lumborum (QL) blocks for video assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) and abdominal/retroperitoneal surgeries, respectively. Patients and Method: Using our IRB approved registry (PRO10120146), we retrospectively reviewed the electronic record of 105 patients, including 51 patients who underwent VATS and received either single injection erector plane block (SESPB) plus IV lido or continuous erector spinae plane block (CESPB), and 54 patients who underwent major abdominal surgery and received either single injection quadratus lumborum block (SQLB) plus IV Lido or continuous quadratus lumborum block (CQLB). Demographics, verbal pain scores (0-10), and opioid consumption (morphine intravenous equivalent; MIVE), all in the context of the same multimodal approach (acetaminophen, ketamine, dexmedetomidine, and ketorolac) were collected at 24, 48, and 72 hours after surgery. Alpha was set to 0.05. Results: SNBs plus IV Lido were as effective as CNBs in regard to pain control and total MIVE at 24, 48, or 72 hours after surgery. Subgroup analysis indicated similar findings were observed in patients who underwent VATS or major abdominal surgery. Conclusions: This analysis suggests that SNBs plus IV Lido are as effective as CNBs for perioperative pain management when ESP or QL blocks are used for VATS or major abdominal surgery, respectively. Keywords: Regional anesthesia, quadratus lumborum block, erector spinae plane block, acute pain

Competing Interest Statement

The authors have declared no competing interest.

Funding Statement

This study did not receive any funding.

Author Declarations

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

The Institutional Review Board of the University of Pittsburgh Human Research Protection Office gave ethical approval for this work prior to its initiation (PRO10120146).

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.

Yes

Data Availability

All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors.

留言 (0)

沒有登入
gif