Abstract
Postoperative pain management of multilevel lumbar fusion remains challenging. There are few reports of opioid-sparing regional analgesia for spine surgery. We present a novel method for surgeon-placed erector spinae plane (ESP) catheters for multilevel lumbar spine fusion and compare pain- and opioid-related outcomes in a matched cohort who received anesthesiologist-placed ESP blocks. A retrospective matched pilot study of 18 patients: 6 received intraoperative, bilateral ESP catheters. Tunneled catheters were placed under the intact ESP at the proximal end of the incision. Continuous infusions of ropivacaine (0.2%) were started in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU) after emergence from anesthesia and maintained for 48 hours. Catheter patients were matched 1:2 with 12 patients who received preincision single-shot ESP blocks administered by an anesthesiologist, according to age, gender, American Society of Anesthesiologists class, body mass index, and number of spinal levels fused. All patients were provided opioid intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IV-PCA). Numeric rating scale pain scores (NRS, 0-10), length of stay (LOS), opioid consumption (oral morphine equivalents, mg), opioid side effects, and complications (motor weakness, local anesthetic toxicity, infection, technical issues, and failure), were compared in the PACU and on the nursing floor. Only 1/6 patients with ESP catheter used opioid IV-PCA, compared with 11/12 who received ESP blocks. There were no differences in total opioid consumption (catheters: 135 ± 141 mg; blocks: 183 ± 112 mg; P = 0.448) or median (interquartile range) LOS (catheters: 73 [50,107] hours; blocks: 90 [72,116] hours, P = 0.708). NRS pain was significantly higher in the PACU after ESP catheters (5.9 ± 1.7) vs ESP blocks (3.3 ± 2.4; P = 0.036), but no differences were found at later timepoints (5.0 ± 1.6 vs 4.3 ± 1.1, respectively; P = 0.383). No catheter-related complications were found. Surgeon-placed ESP catheters represent a simple technique to provide regional analgesia, particularly in centers lacking regional anesthesiology services. Risks, benefits, and efficacy compared to other techniques require prospective study.
Published Version (
Free)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
