Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Erector Spinae Plane Block versus Quadratus Lumborum Block for Postoperative Analgesia after Laparoscopic Resection of Colorectal Cancer: A Prospective Randomized Study.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, the attention paid to colorectal cancer (CRC) surgery and postoperative analgesia has increased.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of the current study was to compare the impact of ultrasound-guided erector spinae plane block (ESPB) and transmuscular quadratus lumborum block (TQLB) upon providing relief to patients with postoperative pain who underwent laparoscopic resection for CRC.

METHODS: In this prospective, comparative, and randomized study, the authors considered a total of 60 patients who chose to undergo laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer. The total number of patients was randomly divided into two groups (such as ESPB and TQLB) so that each group had a total of 30 patients. For the former group, i.e., the ESPB group, 20 ml of 0.25% bupivacaine was administered at each side for bilateral ultrasound-guided erector spinae plane block, while the latter group received the same dose of medicine for bilateral ultrasound-guided transmuscular quadratus lumborum block (TQLB). The researchers recorded the first time to rescue an analgesic, the whole amount of rescue analgesia under consumption in the first 24 hours after the surgical procedure, and associated adverse events.

RESULTS: Among the groups considered, the ESPB group took a significantly lengthy time to raise a first request for rescue analgesic (280 ± 15.5 min) in comparison with the TQLB group (260 ± 13.8 min). Likewise, the consumption of overall nalbuphine was remarkably lesser in the ESPB group during the first 24 hours (24 ± 2.5 mg) compared to the TQLB group (30.5 ± 1.55 mg).

CONCLUSION: The analgesic efficacy of ESPB was better when compared to TQLB in terms of time to rescue analgesia and overall opioid consumption during the first 24 hours. This study was registered at on 10/10/2022 (registration number: NCT05574283).

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app