Efficacy and Safety of Erector Spinae Plane Block for Perioperative Pain Management in Lumbar Spinal Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

The efficacy of ultrasound-guided erector spinae plane block (ESPB) versus freehand ESPB in postoperative pain management after lumbar spinal fusion surgery: a randomized, non-inferiority trial

PURPOSE

Spine surgeries have experienced exponential growth over the past 2 decades. These surgeries are often accompanied by long and severe perioperative pain, presenting a significant management challenge. This study aims to assess and compare the efficacy of two techniques for postoperative pain (POP) management in lumbar spine surgeries: ultrasound-guided erector spinae plane block (ESPB) and intraoperative freehand ESPB.

METHODS

In this prospective randomized non-inferiority trial (Registration Number: IRCT20221107056427N1), adult patients who were candidates for lumbar spinal fusion surgery were randomly divided into two groups: ultrasound-guided ESPB (n = 29) and freehand ESPB (n = 29). The primary outcomes were the total amount of morphine consumed during the first 24 h following the surgery and the numerical rating scale (NRS) pain score at various time points within the first 24 h following the surgery. The secondary outcome was the fentanyl used during surgery.

RESULTS

Participants in the intraoperative freehand approach had considerably higher total morphine consumption in the first postoperative 24 h. The trend of NRS changes in both the ultrasound-guided ESPB group and the freehand ESPB group during the first 24 h after surgery showed a significant decrease. Still, there was no significant difference between the two groups. However, the first analgesic demand time was significantly shorter in the intraoperative freehand ESPB group compared to the ultrasound-guided approach.

CONCLUSION

According to our results, the ultrasound-guided approach of ESPB is more effective in POP management and opioid sparing in lumbar spinal fusion surgeries compared to the freehand approach. However, the data from this study are not sufficient to draw robust conclusions, and further randomized controlled trials with larger sample sizes are required to validate our results.

Efficacy of erector spine plane block in two different approaches to lumbar spinal fusion surgery: a retrospective pilot study

Background

Erector spine plane block (ESPB) has been widely used in spinal surgery, although there are variable data about its efficacy.

Objectives

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of ESPB in elective lumbar spinal fusion surgery patients with two different surgical approaches.

Materials and methods

Retrospectively, 45 elective lumbar transpedicular fusion (TPF) surgery patients undergoing open surgery with different approaches [posterior transforaminal fusion approach (TLIF) or combined posterior and anterior approach (TLIF+ALIF)] were divided into 2 groups: general anesthesia (GA, n = 24) and general anesthesia combined with ESPB (GA + ESPB, n = 21). The primary outcome was to analyze the efficacy of ESPB in two different surgical approaches in terms of pain intensity in the first 48 h. Secondary: Fentanyl-free patients and opioid consumption in the first 24 h postoperatively. Comparative analysis was performed (SPSS® v. 28.0) (p < 0.05).

Results

Out of 45 patients (27 female), 21 received GA + ESPB and 24 received GA. The average age was 60.3 ± 14.3 years. Chronic back pain before the operation was registered in 56% of patients. ESPB was performed in 17 TLIF and in 4 TLIF+ALIF patients. ESPB significantly reduced pain intensity at rest in both surgical approaches 48 h after surgery (p < 0.05). The need for postoperative fentanyl infusion was significantly lower in the group treated with GA + ESPB in both surgical approaches than in those who only received GA (29% vs. 77% in TLIF and 0% vs. 80% in TLIF+ALIF); p = 0.01 and p = 0.004. Additionally, we observed that ESPB provides a good analgesic effect for up to 6.8 ± 3.2 h in the TLIF and 8.9 ± 7.6 h in the TLIF+ALIF approaches. Consequently, ESPB reduced the initiation of the fentanyl compared to GA alone, with a mean difference of 3.2 ± 4.2 h in the TLIF subgroup (p = 0.045) and 6.7 ± 5.3 h in TLIF +ALIF (p = 0.028). Only in the TLIF+ALIF approach, ESPB reduced the total fentanyl consumption compared to those with GA (1.43 ± 0.45 mg/24 h vs. 0.93 ± 0.68 mg/24 h; p = 0.015).

Conclusion

ESPB significantly reduced pain at rest after surgery, the number of patients requiring immediate postoperative fentanyl analgesia, and total fentanyl consumption in both surgical approaches, particularly in TLIF+ALIF. However, the application of ESPB does not always provide completely sufficient analgesia.