| Literature DB >> 35991776 |
Ahmed Ali Gado1, Wafaa Mohamed Alsadek1, Hassan Ali1, Ahmed Abdelaziz Ismail1.
Abstract
Background: Ineffective management of postoperative pain following pediatric cardiac surgeries adversely affects a patient's postoperative course. The erector spinae plane (ESP) block has been described in the literature regarding perioperative pain management. We hypothesized that bilateral ESP blocks in pediatric patients would decrease intraoperative fentanyl consumption, reduce the need for postoperative morphine consumption, and improve pain scores.Entities:
Keywords: Erector Spinae Plane Block; Pediatric Cardiac Surgeries; Sternotomy
Year: 2022 PMID: 35991776 PMCID: PMC9383540 DOI: 10.5812/aapm-123723
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Anesth Pain Med ISSN: 2228-7523
Figure 1.Muscles overlying erector spinae muscles (abbreviations: TP, transverse process; ESM, erector spinae muscle).
Figure 2.A needle penetrates the muscles until hitting the transverse process (abbreviations: TP, transverse process; ESM, erector spinae muscle).
Figure 3.The CONSORT flow chart (abbreviations: ES group, erector spinae plan block group; N group, no block group).
Comparison Between the 2 Groups According to Patient and Surgical Characteristics [a]
| Variables | Group N (n = 48) | Group ES (n = 50) | P Value |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 0.230 | ||
| Mean ± SD | 33.5 ± 24.9 | 28.2 ± 25.3 | |
| Median (min - max) | 33.5 (6 - 84) | 14.5 (6 - 84) | |
|
| 0.201 | ||
| Mean ± SD | 13 ± 7 | 11.7 ± 7.3 | |
| Median (min - max) | 14 (4.8 - 36) | 9.8 (3.2 - 38) | |
|
| 0.356 | ||
| Mean ± SD | 88 ± 20.3 | 84.1 ± 20.8 | |
| Median (min - max) | 90 (60 - 129) | 80.5 (56 - 135) | |
|
| 0.980 | ||
| Male | 21 (43.8) | 22 (44) | |
| Female | 27 (56.3) | 28 (56) | |
|
| 0.563 | ||
| II | 27 (56.3) | 31 (62) | |
| III | 21 (43.8) | 19 (38) | |
|
| 0.557 | ||
| Mean ± SD | 142.8 ± 27.8 | 145.9 ± 23.7 | |
|
| |||
| VSD closure | 19 (39.6) | 27 (54) | 0.153 |
| ASD closure | 14 (29.2) | 11 (22) | 0.416 |
| AVSD closure | 10 (20.8) | 8 (16) | 0.537 |
| SAM resection | 2 (4.2) | 3 (6) | 1.000 |
| Mitral valve repair | 2 (4.2) | 0 (0) | 0.237 |
| Supravalvular AS repair | 1 (2.1) | 0 (0) | 0.490 |
| Pulmonary artery banding | 0 (0) | 1 (2) | 1.000 |
a Values are expressed as No. (%) unless otherwise indicated.
Comparison Between the 2 Groups According to Primary and Secondary Outcomes [a]
| Variables | Group N (n = 48) | Group ES (n = 50) | P Value |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
|
| 6.7 ± 3 | 4.3 ± 1.9 | < 0.001 |
|
| |||
|
| 0.5 ± 0.2 | 0.4 ± 0.2 | < 0.001 |
|
| 108.8 ± 47.8 | 231.6 ± 104.5 | < 0.001 |
|
| 0.042 | ||
|
| 18 (37.5) | 29 (58) | |
|
| 30 (62.5) | 21 (42) |
a Values are expressed as mean ± SD or No. (%).
Figure 4.Comparison between the 2 groups according to postoperative mean FLACC pain score over time.
Comparison Between the 2 Groups According to Postoperative Complications [a]
| Postoperative complications | Group N (n = 48) | Group ES (n = 50) | P Value |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 4 (8.3) | 2 (4) | 0.431 |
|
| 3 (6.3) | 2 (4) | 0.674 |
|
| 2 (4.2) | 3 (6) | 1.000 |
|
| 2 (4.2) | 2 (4) | 1.000 |
|
| 1 (2.1) | 2 (4) | 1.000 |
|
| 2 (4.2) | 0 (0) | 0.237 |
a Values are expressed as No. (%).