Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Erector spinae plane block in dogs undergoing hemilaminectomy: A prospective randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the perioperative cumulative opioid consumption and the incidence of cardiovascular complications in dogs undergoing hemilaminectomy in which either an erector spinae plane (ESP) block or systemic opioids were administered.

STUDY DESIGN: Prospective randomized clinical trial.

ANIMALS: A total of 60 client-owned dogs.

METHODS: Dogs were randomized to one of three groups: an ESP block (group ESP), a constant rate infusion of fentanyl (group FNT, positive control) or a single dose of methadone as premedication (group MTD, negative control). Intraoperative nociceptive response was treated with fentanyl [1 μg kg-1 , intravenously (IV)] boli. Before closure of the surgical site, morphine (0.1 mg kg-1 ) was applied to the dura mater. The cumulative dose of opioids was recorded and compared between groups. The incidence of intraoperative bradycardia and/or hypotension and the time to extubation were compared between groups. The short form of the Glasgow Composite Pain Scale (SF-GCPS) was used to score nociception before anaesthetic induction and 1, 2, 6, 12,18 and 24 hours postoperatively. Methadone 0.2 mg kg-1 was administered IV if the SF-GCPS score was ≥ 5.

RESULTS: Group MTD required more intraoperative rescue analgesia than groups ESP (p = 0.008) and FNT (p = 0.001). The total cumulative intraoperative dose of fentanyl was higher in groups FNT (p < 0.0001) and MTD (p = 0.002) than in group ESP. The incidence of cardiovascular complications was similar between groups. Extubation time was longer in group MTD (p = 0.03). Postoperatively, the time to first rescue analgesia was longer in group ESP than in group MTD (p = 0.03). The cumulative postoperative opioid consumption and pain scores were similar between groups.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The ESP block resulted in a reduced intraoperative opioid consumption compared with the control positive and negative groups.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app