Search

IntroductionErector spinae plane block has been proposed to reduce opioid use and improve pain relief with controversial results. This randomized clinical study aimed to assess the efficacy of erector spinae plane block in major spine surgery including multimodal and ‘Enhance Recovery After Surgery’ programs.MethodAfter institutional review board approval, adult patients undergoing elective lumbar spine surgery with standardized general anesthesia, rehabilitation and multimodal analgesia protocols were randomly allocated to receive bilateral ultrasound-guided block with saline versus ropivacaine (3.75 mg/mL). Before surgery, a bilateral erector spinae plane block was performed at lumbar level (third vertebrae) with 20 mL of solution for each side. The primary outcome was morphine consumption after 24 hours. Secondary outcomes included pain scores and side effects, from postanesthesia care unit to discharge, and questionnaires at 3 months on pain and quality of life (EQ-5D).ResultsFrom November 2019 to July 2021, 50 patients were enrolled with similar characteristics and surgery for each group. After the first 24 hours, there was no statistical difference regarding cumulative intravenous morphine consumption between ropivacaine and saline groups: 7.3 mg (3.7–19) vs 12.5 mg (3.5–26) (p=0.51). Over the five postoperative days, opioid sparing, pain scores and side effects were similar between groups. At 3 months, pain relief, incidence of chronic pain and EQ-5D were similar between groups.DiscussionErector spinae plane block used in conjunction with ‘Enhance Recovery After Surgery’ and multimodal analgesia protocols provides limited reduction in opioid consumption and no long-term benefits.Trial registration numberEudraCT 2019-001678-26.

Background: This prospective multicentre pilot study of patients scheduled for elective major abdominal surgery aimed to validate the fluid challenge (FC) proposed by the closed-loop (CL) system via anaesthesiologist assessment. Methods: This was a phase II trial consisting of two inclusion stages (SIMON method). Each FC (250 mL saline solution for 10 min) proposed by the CL was systematically validated by the anaesthesiologist who could either confirm or refuse the FC or give FC without the CL system. A ≥ 95% agreement between the CL and the anaesthesiologist was considered acceptable. Results: The study was interrupted after interim analysis of the first 19 patients (10 men, median age = 61 years, median body mass index = 26 kg/m2). The anaesthesiologists accepted 165/205 (80%) of fluid boluses proposed by the CL. Median cardiac index (CI) was 2.9 (interquartile: IQ (2.7; 3.4) L/min/m2) and the median coefficient of variation (CV) for CI was 13% (10; 17). Fifteen out of nineteen patients (79%) had a mean CI > 2.5 L/min/m2 or spent > 85% surgery time with pulse pressure variation < 13%. No adverse events related to the CL were reported. Conclusion: In this study of patients scheduled for elective major abdominal surgery, the agreement between CL and anaesthesiologist for giving fluid challenge was 80%, suggesting that CL cannot replace the physician but could help in decision making.