Continuous suprascapular nerve block compared with single-shot interscalene brachial plexus block for pain control after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair

1Citations
Citations of this article
29Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: We compared the analgesic efficacy of a continuous suprascapular nerve block (C-SSNB) and a single-shot interscalene brachial plexus block (S-ISNB) for postoperative pain management in patients undergoing arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. METHODS: A total of 118 patients undergoing arthroscopic rotator cuff repair were randomly allocated to the S-ISNB or C-SSNB groups. Postoperative pain was assessed using the visual analog scale (VAS) at 1, 2, 6, 12, and 24 h postoperatively. Supplemental analgesic use was recorded as total equianalgesic fentanyl consumption. RESULTS: The C-SSNB group showed significantly higher VAS scores at 0-1 h and 1-2 h after the surgery than the S-ISNB group (4.9±2.2 versus 2.3±2.2; p<0.0001 and 4.8±2.1 versus 2.4±2.3; p<0.0001, respectively). The C-SSNB group showed significantly lower VAS scores at 6-12 h after the surgery than the S-ISNB group (4.1±1.8 versus. 5.0±2.5; p=0.031). The C-SSNB group required significantly higher doses of total equianalgesic fentanyl in the post-anesthesia care unit than the S-ISNB group (53.66±44.95 versus 5.93±18.25; p<0.0001). Total equianalgesic fentanyl in the ward and total equianalgesic fentanyl throughout the hospital period were similar between the groups (145.99±152.60 versus 206.13±178.79; p=0.052 and 199.72±165.50 versus 212.15±180.09; p=0.697, respectively). CONCLUSION: C-SSNB was more effective than S-ISNB at 6-12 h after the surgery for postoperative analgesia after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Choi, H., Roh, K., Joo, M., & Hong, S. H. (2020). Continuous suprascapular nerve block compared with single-shot interscalene brachial plexus block for pain control after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil), 75, e2026. https://doi.org/10.6061/clinics/2020/e2026

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free