Comparison of Erector Spinae Plane Block vs Serratus Anterior Plane Block in Thoracic Surgery Recovery
E
r
e
c
t
o
r
S
p
i
n
a
e
P
l
a
n
e
B
l
o
c
k
v
e
r
s
u
s
S
e
r
r
a
t
u
s
A
n
t
e
r
i
o
r
P
l
a
n
e
B
l
o
c
k
f
o
r
Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
o
f
R
e
c
o
v
e
r
y
a
n
d
M
o
r
b
i
d
i
t
y
a
f
t
e
r
M
i
n
i
m
a
l
l
y
I
n
v
a
s
i
v
e
T
h
o
r
a
c
i
c
S
u
r
g
e
r
y
:
A
P
r
o
s
p
e
c
t
i
v
e
,
R
a
n
d
o
m
i
s
e
d
,
D
o
u
b
l
e
-
B
l
i
n
d
C
l
i
n
i
c
a
l
T
r
i
a
l
.
Dr Dylan Finnerty FCAI FJFICMI
Anaesthesiology Research Fellow
Mater Misericordiae University Hospital
Delaney Medal Presentation
16
th
June 2020
A
c
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
m
e
n
t
s
•
Co authors- Dr. Aisling Mc Mahon, Dr. John McNamara, Dr. Sean
Hartigan, Dr. Michael Griffin, Prof Donal Buggy
•
Thoracic Surgeons- Prof K Redmond, Prof D Eaton
•
MMUH Anaesthesia Nurses
•
Patients for their participation in this trial
B
a
c
k
g
r
o
u
n
d
•
Minimally Invasive Thoracic
Surgery (MITS)
•
Severe Post operative pain
•
Serratus Anterior Plane Block-
current standard
•
Can we do more for our
patients?
E
r
e
c
t
o
r
S
p
i
n
a
e
P
l
a
n
e
B
l
o
c
k
•
Interfascial plane block
•
First described by Mauricio
Forrero in 2016
•
“Paravertebral by proxy”?
•
Widely popular despite limited
evidence
•
No published RCT of ESP in
MITS
Forero M, Adhikary SD, Lopez H, et al. The erector spinae plane block: a novel analgesic technique in thoracic
neuropathic pain. Reg Anesth Pain Med 2016;41(5):621-27.
•
Hypothesis
: ESP
provides superior
quality of recovery and
analgesia compared to
SAP
•
Ethical approval: MMUH IRB
1/378/2039
•
Clinical Trials.gov NCT 0386261
•
Randomised 60 patients to ESP or
SAP over 11 month period
•
Primary outcome
: Quality of
Recovery at 24 hours
R
E
S
U
L
T
S
•
15 questions assessing patients
recovery experience
•
Standardised and reproducible
•
5 domains- Pain, physical
comfort, physical independence,
psychological support,
emotional state
•
150 max score, 0 min score
•
Minimum clinically important
difference = 8
Myles PS, Myles DB, Galagher W, et al. Minimal clinically important difference for three quality of
recovery scales. Anesthesiology: The Journal of the American Society of Anesthesiologists
2016;125(1):39-45
Area under the
curve (AUC) of
Pain VRS versus
time (at rest)
*P=0.03
Area under the
curve (AUC) of
VRS Pain versus
time (Deep
Inspiration)
*P= 0.01
*
*
Results
C
o
n
c
l
u
s
i
o
n
•
ESP assoc. with superior
recovery and analgesia
•
Trend towards ↓ LOS
and morbidity
S
t
r
e
n
g
t
h
s
o
f
t
h
i
s
t
r
i
a
l
•
Double blinded, prospective randomised
trial
•
Patient centred Primary Endpoint
recommended by a recent STeP
publication (Myles 2018)
•
Includes traditional endpoints
•
Addressed a knowledge gap
•
First published RCT of ESP vs SAP (QoR) -
British Journal of Anaesthesia (accepted
June 11
th
2020)
Myles PS, Boney O, Botti M, et al. Systematic review and consensus definitions for the Standardised Endpoints in Perioperative Medicine
(StEP) initiative: patient comfort. British journal of anaesthesia 2018;120(4):705-11
.
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
RCT comparing 2 forms of
Regional Anaesthesia
Minimally Invasive Thoracic Surgery often results in severe post-operative pain, typically managed with the Serratus Anterior Plane (SAP) block. This study compared the quality of recovery and morbidity between SAP and the relatively new Erector Spinae Plane (ESP) block. Results showed that ESP provided superior recovery outcomes, emphasizing the potential benefits of ESP over SAP in thoracic surgery patients.
Download Presentation
Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.
The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author. Download presentation by click this link. If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.
E N D
Presentation Transcript
Erector Spinae Plane Block versus Serratus Anterior Erector Spinae Plane Block versus Serratus Anterior Plane Block for Quality of Recovery and Morbidity after Plane Block for Quality of Recovery and Morbidity after Minimally Invasive Thoracic Surgery: Minimally Invasive Thoracic Surgery: A Prospective, Randomised, Double A Prospective, Randomised, Double- -Blind Clinical Trial. Blind Clinical Trial. Dr Dylan Finnerty FCAI FJFICMI Anaesthesiology Research Fellow Mater Misericordiae University Hospital Delaney Medal Presentation 16thJune 2020
Acknowledgements Acknowledgements Co authors- Dr. Aisling Mc Mahon, Dr. John McNamara, Dr. Sean Hartigan, Dr. Michael Griffin, Prof Donal Buggy Thoracic Surgeons- Prof K Redmond, Prof D Eaton MMUH Anaesthesia Nurses Patients for their participation in this trial
Background Background Minimally Invasive Thoracic Surgery (MITS) Severe Post operative pain Serratus Anterior Plane Block- current standard Can we do more for our patients?
Erector Spinae Plane Block Erector Spinae Plane Block Interfascial plane block First described by Mauricio Forrero in 2016 Paravertebral by proxy ? Widely popular despite limited evidence No published RCT of ESP in MITS Forero M, Adhikary SD, Lopez H, et al. The erector spinae plane block: a novel analgesic technique in thoracic neuropathic pain. Reg Anesth Pain Med 2016;41(5):621-27.
Hypothesis: ESP provides superior quality of recovery and analgesia compared to SAP Ethical approval: MMUH IRB 1/378/2039 Clinical Trials.gov NCT 0386261 Randomised 60 patients to ESP or SAP over 11 month period Primary outcome: Quality of Recovery at 24 hours
RESULTS RESULTS 15 questions assessing patients recovery experience Standardised and reproducible 5 domains- Pain, physical comfort, physical independence, psychological support, emotional state 150 max score, 0 min score Minimum clinically important difference = 8 Primary Outcome ESP SAP P value QoR 15 score 114 (16) 102 (22) 0.02 Myles PS, Myles DB, Galagher W, et al. Minimal clinically important difference for three quality of recovery scales. Anesthesiology: The Journal of the American Society of Anesthesiologists 2016;125(1):39-45
Secondary Outcomes AUC Pain VRS versus time (at rest) ESP SAP 112 (35) 0.03 p value Results 92 (31) AUC Pain VRS versus time (on deep inspiration) 107(32) 129 (32) 0.01 Area under the curve (AUC) of Pain VRS versus time (at rest) *P=0.03 Time (min) to first opioid analgesia in PACU 32.6 (20.6) 12.7 (9.5) 0.003 * Total postoperative opioid consumption (mg) at 24 hours 29.3 (31.1) 39.9 (34.3) 0.24 Area under the curve (AUC) of VRS Pain versus time (Deep Inspiration) *P= 0.01 Length of stay (days) 3 (2-6) 6 (3-9) 0.17 Comprehensive Complications Index (CCI) 1 (0-2) 4 (0-26) 0.03 *
Conclusion Conclusion ESP assoc. with superior recovery and analgesia Trend towards LOS and morbidity
Strengths of this trial Strengths of this trial Double blinded, prospective randomised trial Patient centred Primary Endpoint recommended by a recent STeP publication (Myles 2018) Includes traditional endpoints Addressed a knowledge gap First published RCT of ESP vs SAP (QoR) - British Journal of Anaesthesia (accepted June 11th 2020) Myles PS, Boney O, Botti M, et al. Systematic review and consensus definitions for the Standardised Endpoints in Perioperative Medicine (StEP) initiative: patient comfort. British journal of anaesthesia 2018;120(4):705-11.
Summary Summary RCT comparing 2 forms of Regional Anaesthesia Local and International Impact Patient focus Original clinical research
