Regional anesthesia for thoracic surgery: a narrative review of indications and clinical considerations

Get your 7-point golden medal for pain management in video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Thoracic surgery is evolving, necessitating an adaptation for perioperative anesthesia and analgesia. This review highlights the recent advancements in perioperative (multimodal) analgesia for minimally invasive thoracic surgery.

RECENT FINDINGS

Continuous advancements in surgical techniques have led to a reduction in surgical trauma. However, managing perioperative pain remains a major challenge, impeding postoperative recovery. The traditional neuraxial technique is now deemed outdated for minimally invasive thoracic surgery. Instead, newer regional techniques have emerged, and traditional approaches have undergone (re-)evaluation by experts and professional societies to establish guidelines and practices. Assessing the quality of recovery, evenafter discharge, has become a crucial factor in evaluating the effectiveness of these strategies, aiding clinicians in making informed decisions to improve perioperative care.

SUMMARY

In the realm of minimally invasive thoracic surgery, perioperative analgesia is typically administered through systemic and regional techniques. Nevertheless, collaboration between anesthesiologists and surgeons, utilizing surgically placed nerve blocks and an active chest drain management, has the potential to significantly improve overall patient care.

Analgesic efficacy and safety of erector spinae versus serratus anterior plane block in thoracic surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Erector spinae plane block (ESPB) and serratus anterior plane block (SAPB) are regional anesthesia techniques that have shown favorable results in pain management following thoracic surgeries; however, their relative superiority is unclear. This review (PROSPERO: CRD42023443018) aims to compare the analgesic efficacy of ESPB and SAPB in patients undergoing thoracic surgeries through the pooled analysis of co-primary outcomes: postoperative oral-morphine-equivalent (mg) consumption in 24 h and pain scores (static) at 24 h.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted across PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from inception to May 2023, comparing ESPB and SAPB in thoracic surgeries. Statistical pooling was done using Review Manager 5.4.1. Bias assessment employed the Cochrane Collaboration Risk-of-Bias 2.0 tool. The strength of evidence was assessed using the guidelines from the GRADE working group.

RESULTS

Nine RCTs (485 patients) were included in the study. Postoperative pain scores (static) at 24 h (mean difference (MD) =  - 0.31 [- 0.57, 0.05], p = 0.02) and postoperative oral-morphine-equivalent (mg) consumption in 24 h (MD =  - 19.73 [- 25.65, - 13.80], p < 0.00001) were significantly lower in the ESBP group. However, the MDs did not exceed the set threshold for clinical importance. No significant differences were observed in the opioid-related adverse effects and block-related complications.

CONCLUSION

Our statistically significant results imply that ESPB has superior analgesic efficacy compared to SAPB; however, this difference is clinically unimportant. The safety profile of the two blocks is comparable; hence, current evidence cannot define the relative superiority of one block over the other. Our findings warrant further research with standardized methodologies and a longer duration of analgesic efficacy assessment to yield robust evidence for better clinical applications.