Lisa Y Sun1, Shruthi Basireddy2, Lynn Ngai Gerber3, Jason Lamano2, John Costouros4, Emilie Cheung5, Jan Boublik3, Jean Louis Horn3, Ban C H Tsui6. 1. Department of Anesthesiology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA. 2. Loyola University Chicago, Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, USA. 3. Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative, and Pain Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford University Medical Center, 300 Pasteur Drive, Rm H3580, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA. 4. Institute for Joint Restoration, Dearborn & Associates, Menlo Park, CA, USA. 5. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, USA. 6. Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative, and Pain Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford University Medical Center, 300 Pasteur Drive, Rm H3580, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA. bantsui@stanford.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The high-thoracic erector spinae plane block (HT-ESPB) has been reported as an effective analgesic modality for the shoulder region without phrenic nerve palsy. The goal of this study was to compare the HT-ESPB as a phrenic nerve-sparing alternative to an interscalene block for total shoulder arthroplasty. METHODS: Thirty patients undergoing total shoulder arthroplasty at Stanford Health Care (Palo Alto, CA, USA) were enrolled in a double-blind randomized controlled trial. We randomized 28 patients to receive either an interscalene or HT-ESPB perineural catheter preoperatively; 26 patients were included in the final analysis. The study was powered for the primary outcome of incidence of hemidiaphragmatic paralysis in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU). Other outcome measures included incentive spirometry volume, brachial plexus motor and sensory exams, adverse events, pain scores, and opioid consumption. RESULTS: The incidence of hemidiaphragmatic paralysis in the HT-ESPB catheter group was significantly lower than in the interscalene catheter group (0/12, 0% vs 14/14, 100%; P < 0.001). No statistically significant differences were found in pain scores and opioid consumption (in oral morphine equivalents) between the interscalene and HT-ESPB groups through postoperative day (POD) 2. Nevertheless, the mean (standard deviation) point estimates for opioid consumption for the HT-ESPB group were higher than for the interscalene group in the PACU (HT-ESPB: 24.8 [26.7] mg; interscalene: 10.7 [21.7] mg) and for POD 0 (HT-ESPB: 20.5 [25.0] mg; interscalene: 6.7 [12.0] mg). In addition, cumulative postoperative opioid consumption was significantly higher at POD 0 (PACU through POD 0) in the HT-ESPB group (45.3 [39.9] mg) than in the interscalene group (16.6 [21.9] mg; P = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that continuous HT-ESPB can be a phrenic nerve-sparing alternative to continuous interscalene brachial plexus blockade, although the latter provided superior opioid-sparing in the immediate postoperative period. This was a small sample size study, and further investigations powered to detect differences in analgesic and quality of recovery score endpoints are needed. STUDY REGISTRATION: www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov (NCT03807505); registered 17 January 2019.
PURPOSE: The high-thoracic erector spinae plane block (HT-ESPB) has been reported as an effective analgesic modality for the shoulder region without phrenic nerve palsy. The goal of this study was to compare the HT-ESPB as a phrenic nerve-sparing alternative to an interscalene block for total shoulder arthroplasty. METHODS: Thirty patients undergoing total shoulder arthroplasty at Stanford Health Care (Palo Alto, CA, USA) were enrolled in a double-blind randomized controlled trial. We randomized 28 patients to receive either an interscalene or HT-ESPB perineural catheter preoperatively; 26 patients were included in the final analysis. The study was powered for the primary outcome of incidence of hemidiaphragmatic paralysis in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU). Other outcome measures included incentive spirometry volume, brachial plexus motor and sensory exams, adverse events, pain scores, and opioid consumption. RESULTS: The incidence of hemidiaphragmatic paralysis in the HT-ESPB catheter group was significantly lower than in the interscalene catheter group (0/12, 0% vs 14/14, 100%; P < 0.001). No statistically significant differences were found in pain scores and opioid consumption (in oral morphine equivalents) between the interscalene and HT-ESPB groups through postoperative day (POD) 2. Nevertheless, the mean (standard deviation) point estimates for opioid consumption for the HT-ESPB group were higher than for the interscalene group in the PACU (HT-ESPB: 24.8 [26.7] mg; interscalene: 10.7 [21.7] mg) and for POD 0 (HT-ESPB: 20.5 [25.0] mg; interscalene: 6.7 [12.0] mg). In addition, cumulative postoperative opioid consumption was significantly higher at POD 0 (PACU through POD 0) in the HT-ESPB group (45.3 [39.9] mg) than in the interscalene group (16.6 [21.9] mg; P = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that continuous HT-ESPB can be a phrenic nerve-sparing alternative to continuous interscalene brachial plexus blockade, although the latter provided superior opioid-sparing in the immediate postoperative period. This was a small sample size study, and further investigations powered to detect differences in analgesic and quality of recovery score endpoints are needed. STUDY REGISTRATION: www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov (NCT03807505); registered 17 January 2019.