Comparative effectiveness of erector spinae plane block and paravertebral block in video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery: a single-center, prospective, randomized study

Cover Page


Cite item

Full Text

Open Access Open Access
Restricted Access Access granted
Restricted Access Subscription or Fee Access

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Effective postoperative analgesia in thoracic surgery is essential for preventing complications such as atelectasis, pneumonia, and chronic pain. Despite the proven efficacy of paravertebral block (PVB), its use requires significant experience and carries certain risks. Erector spinae plane (ESP) block is considered a promising alternative; however, its effectiveness remains controversial, necessitating further comparative evaluation of these techniques.

AIM: The work is aimed to compare the analgesic efficacy of ESP block and PVB during and after video-assisted thoracoscopic atypical lung resection.

METHODS: A single-center, prospective, randomized, controlled trial was conducted in 45 patients aged 18–75 years (median age 63 [59; 69]) who underwent video-assisted thoracoscopic biopsy or atypical lung resection. Patients were randomized into two groups: ESP block group (n = 22) and PVB group (n = 23). The primary endpoints were pain intensity during intraoperative and postoperative periods (at rest and during coughing), and analysis of hemodynamic changes.

RESULTS: Anesthesia performance time was significantly shorter in the ESP group (p < 0.05). Pain intensity on the numeric rating scale was minimal in both groups during the first 3 hours after extubation. However, starting from hour 4 a statistically significant difference was observed, with a slight reduction in pain in the PVB group (p < 0.05). In the PVB group, pain scores during coughing remained lower throughout the 48-hour postoperative period. There was no significant difference between groups in fentanyl requirement (p = 0.72). Arterial hypotension requiring vasopressor support occurred more frequently in the PVB group. Despite the statistically significant differences, pain intensity did not exceed the score of 4 points on the numeric rating scale in either group over the 48-hour period.

CONCLUSION: During thoracoscopic interventions on the lungs in patients with cancer, the use of ESP block ensured a postoperative analgesic effect comparable to that of paravertebral block, accompanied by lower influence on hemodynamic indicators.

Full Text

Restricted Access

About the authors

Marat R. Akhmadullin

Saint Petersburg City Clinical Oncology Dispensary; Joint Stock Company “Group of Companies ‘MEDSI’”

Author for correspondence.
Email: akhmadullin.marat.rad@yandex.ru
ORCID iD: 0009-0004-6753-5066
SPIN-code: 4175-4096

MD

Russian Federation, Saint Petersburg; Saint Petersburg

Yaroslav I. Vasilev

Saint Petersburg City Clinical Oncology Dispensary; North-Western State Medical University named after I.I. Mechnikov

Email: yaroslav.Vasilev@szgmu.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-9758-2390
SPIN-code: 4425-9169

MD, Cand. Sci. (Medicine), Assistant Professor

Russian Federation, Saint Petersburg; Saint Petersburg

Nadezhda G. Marova

Joint Stock Company “Group of Companies ‘MEDSI’”; North-Western State Medical University named after I.I. Mechnikov

Email: mnsno@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-5801-9594
SPIN-code: 5935-5615

MD, Cand. Sci. (Medicine), Assistant Professor

Russian Federation, Saint Petersburg; Saint Petersburg

Victor A. Koriachkin

Saint Petersburg State Pediatric Medical University

Email: vakoryachkin@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-3400-8989
SPIN-code: 6101-0578

MD, Dr. Sci. (Medicine), Professor

Russian Federation, Saint Petersburg

References

  1. Cheng D, Downey RJ, Kernstine K, et al. Video-Assisted Thoracic Surgery in Lung Cancer Resection: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review of Controlled Trials. Innovations. 2007;2(6):261–292. doi: 10.1097/IMI.0b013e3181662c6a
  2. Chen FF, Zhang D, Wang YL, et al. Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery Lobectomy versus Open Lobectomy in Patients with Clinical Stage I Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Meta-Analysis. Eur. J. Surg. Oncol. 2013;39(9):957–963. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2013.06.016
  3. Feray S, Lubach J, Joshi GP, et al; PROSPECT Working Group. PROSPECT guidelines for video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery: a systematic review and procedure-specific postoperative pain management recommendations. Anaesthesia. 2022;77(3):311–325. doi: 10.1111/anae.15609
  4. Scarfe AJ, Schuhmann-Hingel S, Duncan JK, et al. Continuous paravertebral block for post-cardiothoracic surgery analgesia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2016;50(6):1010–1018. doi: 10.1093/ejcts/ezw168
  5. Singh NP, Makkar JK, Kuberan A, et al. Efficacy of regional anesthesia techniques for postoperative analgesia in patients undergoing major oncologic breast surgeries: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Can J Anaesth. 2022;69(4):527–549. doi: 10.1007/s12630-021-02183-z
  6. Adhikary SD, Pruett A, Forero M, Thiruvenkatarajan V. Erector Spinae Plane Block as an Alternative to Epidural Analgesia for Post-Operative Analgesia Following Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery: A Case Study and a Literature Review on the Spread of Local Anaesthetic in the Erector Spinae Plane. Indian J. Anaesth. 2018;62(1):75–78. doi: 10.4103/ija.IJA_693_17
  7. Yang H-M, Choi YJ, Kwon H-J, et al. Comparison of Injectate Spread and Nerve Involvement between Retrolaminar and Erector Spinae Plane Blocks in the Thoracic Region: A Cadaveric Study. Anaesthesia. 2018;73(10):1244–1250. doi: 10.1111/anae.14408
  8. Ivanusic J, Konishi Y, Barrington MJ. A Cadaveric Study Investigating the Mechanism of Action of Erector Spinae Blockade. Reg. Anesth. Pain Med. 2018;43(6):567–571. doi: 10.1097/AAP.0000000000000789
  9. Akram M, Iftikhar MR, Fatima Q, et al. Comparative analysis of TPVB and ESPB for postoperative pain management in thoracic and breast surgeries. Future Sci OA. 2024;10(1):2430852. doi: 10.1080/20565623.2024.2430852
  10. Oostvogels L, Weibel S, Meißner M, et al. Erector spinae plane block for postoperative pain. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2024;2(2):CD013763. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013763.pub3
  11. Schnabel A, Weibel S, Pogatzki-Zahn E, Meyer-Frießem CH, Oostvogels L. Erector spinae plane block for postoperative pain. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2023;10(10):CD013763. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013763.pub2
  12. Ardon AE, Curley E, Greengrass R. Safety and Complications of Landmark-based Paravertebral Blocks: A Retrospective Analysis of 979 Patients and 4983 Injections. Clin J Pain. 2024;40(6):367–372. doi: 10.1097/AJP.0000000000001208
  13. Aponte A, Sala-Blanch X, Prats-Galino A, et al. Anatomical evaluation of the extent of spread in the erector spinae plane block: a cadaveric study. Can J Anaesth. 2019;66(8):886–893. doi: 10.1007/s12630-019-01399-4
  14. Dautzenberg KHW, Zegers MJ, Bleeker CP, et al. Unpredictable Injectate Spread of the Erector Spinae Plane Block in Human Cadavers. Anesth Analg. 2019;129(5):e163–e166. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000004187
  15. Zhao H, Xin L, Feng Y. The Effect of Preoperative Erector Spinae Plane vs. Paravertebral Blocks on Patient-Controlled Oxycodone Consumption after Video-Assisted Thoracic Surgery: A Prospective Randomized, Blinded, Non-Inferiority Study. J. Clin. Anesth. 2020;62:109737. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2020.109737
  16. Taketa Y, Irisawa Y, Fujitani T. Comparison of Ultrasound-Guided Erector Spinae Plane Block and Thoracic Paravertebral Block for Postoperative Analgesia after Video-Assisted Thoracic Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Non-Inferiority Clinical Trial. Reg. Anesth. Pain Med. 2019;45:10–15. doi: 10.1136/rapm-2019-100827
  17. Fang B, Wang Z, Huang X. Ultrasound-Guided Preoperative Single-Dose Erector Spinae Plane Block Provides Comparable Analgesia to Thoracic Paravertebral Block Following Thoracotomy: A Single Center Randomized Controlled Double-Blind Study. Ann. Transl. Med. 2019;7(8):174. doi: 10.21037/atm.2019.03.53
  18. Belousova EI, Matinyan NV, Tsintsadze AA, Kovaleva EA. Comparison of regional blocks performed under ultrasound navigation during thoracoscopic surgical interventions in children with malignant neoplasms: prospective randomized single center study. Regional Anesthesia and Acute Pain Management. 2024;18(2):155–164. doi: 10.17816/RA629321
  19. Pang J, You J, Chen Y, Song C. Comparison of erector spinae plane block with paravertebral block for thoracoscopic surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Cardiothorac Surg. 2023;18(1):300. doi: 10.1186/s13019-023-02343-w
  20. Tsui BCH, Fonseca A, Munshey F, McFadyen G, Caruso TJ. The erector spinae plane (ESP) block: a pooled review of 242 cases. J Clin Anesth. 2019;53:29–34. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2018.09.036
  21. Schwartzmann A, Peng P, Maciel MA, Forero M. Mechanism of the erector spinae plane block: insights from a magnetic resonance imaging study. Can J Anaesth. 2020;67(7):942–948. doi: 10.1007/s12630-020-01613-8
  22. Marhofer D, Marhofer P, Kettner SC, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging analysis of the spread of local anesthetic solution after ultrasound-guided lateral thoracic paravertebral blockade: a volunteer study. Anesthesiology. 2013;118(5):1106–1112. doi: 10.1097/ALN.0b013e318289465f
  23. Vidal E, Giménez H, Forero M, Fajardo M. Erector spinae plane block: a cadaver study to determine its mechanism of action. Rev Esp Anestesiol Reanim. 2018;65(9):514–519. doi: 10.1016/j.redar.2018.07.004
  24. Zhang L, Hu Y, Liu H, et al. Analgesic Efficacy of Combined Thoracic Paravertebral Block and Erector Spinae Plane Block for Video-Assisted Thoracic Surgery: A Prospective Randomized Clinical Trial. Med Sci Monit. 2023;29:e940247. doi: 10.12659/MSM.940247

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
2. Fig. 1. Erector spinae plane block (sonographic landmarks).

Download (326KB)
3. Fig. 2. Paravertebral block (sonographic landmarks).

Download (319KB)

Copyright (c) 2025 Eco-Vector

License URL: https://eco-vector.com/for_authors.php#07

СМИ зарегистрировано Федеральной службой по надзору в сфере связи, информационных технологий и массовых коммуникаций (Роскомнадзор).
Регистрационный номер и дата принятия решения о регистрации СМИ: серия ПИ ФС 77 - 55827 от 30.10.2013 г
СМИ зарегистрировано Федеральной службой по надзору в сфере связи, информационных технологий и массовых коммуникаций (Роскомнадзор).
Регистрационный номер и дата принятия решения о регистрации СМИ: серия ЭЛ № ЭЛ № ФС 77 - 80651 от 15.03.2021 г
.