Erector spinae plane blocks for analgesia after percutaneous nephrolithotomy

A pathway to reduce opioids

Authors

  • Jonathan H. Berger University of California San Diego
  • Waseem Abdou 2. University of California, San Diego School of Medicine, La Jolla, California, USA
  • Jacob L. Roberts 1. University of California, San Diego Department of Urology, San Diego, California, USA
  • Michelle Leach 1. University of California, San Diego Department of Urology, San Diego, California, USA
  • John F. Ryan 3. University of California, San Diego Department of Anesthesia, San Diego, California, USA
  • Saisantosh V. Attaluri 3. University of California, San Diego Department of Anesthesia, San Diego, California, USA
  • John J. Finneran 3. University of California, San Diego Department of Anesthesia, San Diego, California, USA
  • Roger L. Sur University of California, San Diego Department of Urology, San Diego, California, USA
  • Manoj Monga University of California, San Diego Department of Urology, San Diego, California, USA
  • Seth K. Bechis University of California, San Diego Department of Urology, San Diego, California, USA

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.8323

Keywords:

Percutaneous nephrolithotomy, PCNL, opioid reduction, regional block, regional anesthesia, erector spinae plane block

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Despite its minimally invasive nature, percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) may be associated with significant pain. Challenges in pain control may prevent timely discharge (and expose patients to adverse effects of opioid use). We sought to evaluate whether our patients who underwent erector spinae plane (ESP) regional blocks experienced improved postoperative pain control and decreased opioid use after PCNL (compared with those who did not receive blocks).

METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed consecutive PCNL cases on patients admitted for greater than 24 hours without pre-existing opioid regimens for chronic pain. Cases were completed by a single high-volume surgeon. Patients who accepted an ESP block were compared to those who did not receive a block. Patients received either a single injection or a disposable pump delivering intermittent boluses of ropivacaine 0.2%. Demographic and perioperative data were analyzed. The primary outcomes were opioid use measured in morphine milligram equivalent (MME) and patient-reported pain scores during the first 24 hours of hospitalization.

RESULTS: From March 2019 to August 2021, 44 patients were identified who met criteria — 28 of whom received an ESP block (including 14 continuous blocks). The patients who received blocks had significantly decreased opioid use (18.3 vs. 81.3 MME, p=0.004) and a longer mean time to first non-zero pain score (p=0.004). Continuous blocks had similar opioid use to single shot blocks (21.0 vs. 15.6 MME, p=0.952).

CONCLUSIONS: ESP regional blocks appear to offer an effective adjunct method for pain control after PCNL and may reduce post-PCNL opioid use while maintaining adequate patient analgesia.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Downloads

Published

2023-07-21

How to Cite

Berger, J. H., Abdou, W., Roberts, J. L. ., Leach, M., Ryan, J. F., Attaluri, S. V. ., Finneran, J. J., Sur, R. L., Monga, M., & Bechis, S. K. . (2023). Erector spinae plane blocks for analgesia after percutaneous nephrolithotomy: A pathway to reduce opioids. Canadian Urological Association Journal, 17(10), E330–5. https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.8323

Issue

Vol. 17 No. 10 (2023): CUAJ October

Section

Original Research

License

You, the Author(s), assign your copyright in and to the Article to the Canadian Urological Association. This means that you may not, without the prior written permission of the CUA:

  • Post the Article on any Web site
  • Translate or authorize a translation of the Article
  • Copy or otherwise reproduce the Article, in any format, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so
  • Copy or otherwise reproduce portions of the Article, including tables and figures, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so.

The CUA encourages use for non-commercial educational purposes and will not unreasonably deny any such permission request.

You retain your moral rights in and to the Article. This means that the CUA may not assert its copyright in such a way that would negatively reflect on your reputation or your right to be associated with the Article.

The CUA also requires you to warrant the following:

  • That you are the Author(s) and sole owner(s), that the Article is original and unpublished and that you have not previously assigned copyright or granted a licence to any other third party;
  • That all individuals who have made a substantive contribution to the article are acknowledged;
  • That the Article does not infringe any proprietary right of any third party and that you have received the permissions necessary to include the work of others in the Article; and
  • That the Article does not libel or violate the privacy rights of any third party.