A comparison of ultrasound guided bilateral single injection shot Erector Spinae Plane blocks versus wound infiltration for post-operative analgesia in laparoscopic assisted colonic surgery- a prospective randomised study

Abstract

Background

Both wound infiltration (WI) with local anaesthetic and Erector Spinae Plane block (ESPB) have been described for post-operative analgesia after abdominal surgery. This study compared the efficacy of WI versus ESPB for post-operative analgesia after laparoscopic assisted colonic surgery.

Methods

Seventy-two patients between 18 and 85 years of age undergoing elective surgery were randomised to receive either WI or ESPB. In the WI group a 40 ml bolus of 0.5% Ropivacaine, infiltrated at the ports and minimally invasive wound at subcutaneous and fascia layers. In the ESPB group at T8 level, under ultrasound guidance, a 22-gauge nerve block needle was passed through the Erector Spinae muscle to reach its fascia. A dose up to 40 ml of 0.5% Ropivacaine, divided into two equal volumes, was injected at each side. Both groups had a multimodal analgesic regime, including regular Paracetamol, dexamethasone and patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) with Fentanyl. The primary end point was a post-operative pain score utilising a verbal Numerical Rating Score (NRS, 0–10) on rest and coughing in the post anaesthetic care unit (PACU) and in the first 24 h. Secondary outcomes measured were: opioid usage, length of stay and any clinical adverse events.

Results

There was no significant treatment difference in PACU NRS at rest and coughing (p-values 0. 382 and 0.595respectively). Similarly, there were no significant differences in first 24 h NRS at rest and coughing (p-values 0.285 and 0.431 respectively). There was no significant difference in Fentanyl use in PACU or in the first 24 h (p- values 0.900 and 0.783 respectively). Neither was there a significant difference found in mean total Fentanyl use between ESPB and WI groups (p-value 0.787).

Conclusion

Our observations found both interventions had an overall similar efficacy.

Trial registration

The study was registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry (ACTRN: 12619000113156).