MARATTO

article · QJM

The Effect of Erector Spinae Plane Block on Postoperative Quality of Recovery after Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy

Abstract

Abstract Background The postoperative pain following laparoscopic cholecystectomy consists of both somatic and visceral components with pain originating from port entry wounds, gallbladder resection and abdominal insufflation that leads to peritoneal distention and peritoneal damage. Objective To determine whether erector spinae plane block improves post operative pain, opioid consumption, nausea, vomiting and early mobilization in patients undergoing (LC). Patients and Methods This prospective randomized controlled interventional study was conducted at operative theatres, Anesthesiology, Intensive Care and Pain Management Department, Faculty of Medicine, Ain Shams University Hospitals for 6 months. Results These results suggest that ESPB can be effective option for postoperative pain management in laparoscopic cholecystectomy, allowing healthcare providers and patients to choose the most suitable technique based on individual preferences and clinical considerations. However, further research with larger sample sizes and multicentric studies would be valuable to confirm these findings and explore potential variations in different patient populations or surgical settings. Conclusion The incorporation of specific numerical findings from multiple studies accentuates the robust evidence suggesting that erector spinae plane block is associated with superior pain control, faster recovery, and reduced reliance on rescue analgesia in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. These quantitative outcomes underscore the potential of ESP block as a transformative analgesic technique in the realm of perioperative care.

Research topics

  • Anesthesia and Pain Management
  • Nausea and vomiting management
  • Cardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical Outcomes

Read the original research

This page summarises published work. The authoritative version sits with the publisher.

DOI: 10.1093/qjmed/hcae175.098

Is something wrong with this record? Report it or request removal.

Discussion

Discuss this research

Have you built on this work, tried to replicate it, or seen it applied in practice? Share what you know. Verified researchers and MARATTO™ domain experts can open a discussion, and any member can reply. Contributions are reviewed before they appear.

No discussion yet. Open the first thread.