Background Erector spinae plane blocks are used to improve outcomes after spine surgery, but pain frequently outlasts the duration of single injection blocks. We hypothesized continuous erector spinae plane (cESP) catheters would provide superior analgesia. We terminated a prospective double-blinded randomized clinical trial (RCT) comparing outcomes after multilevel spine surgery among patients randomized to saline versus ropivacaine cESP catheters. We present two cases of undesired epidural spread of ropivacaine and discuss etiology, management, and future research directions.
Case presentation Nine out of 44 patients (planned) enrolled in the RCT; 6/9 were randomized to receive ropivacaine infusions via bilateral cESP catheters. Two patients underwent uncomplicated posterior lumbar fusion and were recovering well with minimal pain and opioid requirements through postoperative day 1. Both had new-onset urinary retention and bilateral lower extremity numbness, weakness and paresthesias (24 and 30 hours after infusion-start time, respectively). One patient underwent MRI, which was remarkable for an epidural fluid collection compressing the thecal sac. Infusions were stopped, cESP catheters were removed and symptoms fully resolved over the next 3–5 hours.
Conclusions Unwanted neuraxial spread of local anesthetic from cESP catheters may be a unique consideration after spine surgery, accounted for by unpredictable local anesthetic distribution within disrupted surgical planes. Future studies are indicated to determine optimal catheter regimens together with guidance for extended monitoring in parallel with further studies of efficacy in spine surgery cohorts.
Trial registration number NCT05494125.
- Nerve Block
- Pain, Postoperative
- Postoperative Complications
- REGIONAL ANESTHESIA
- Anesthesia, Local
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Contributors EMS and APH conceived and designed the study; all authors participated in the planning, conduct, reporting, and interpretation of data; KA and JS participated in acquisition of data; KA and EMS prepared the tables and wrote the manuscript; all authors participated in revising the manuscript for content. All authors approved the final version of the manuscript; EMS accepted full responsibility for the work and conduct of the study, had access to the data, and controlled the decision to publish.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.