Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Differential nerve blockade to explain anterior thoracic analgesia without sensory blockade after an erector spinae plane block may be wishful thinking
  1. Ranjith Kumar Sivakumar,
  2. Chayapa Luckanachanthachote and
  3. Manoj Kumar Karmakar
  1. Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Prince of Wales Hospital, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Faculty of Medicine, Shatin, New Territories, Hong Kong
  1. Correspondence to Professor Manoj Kumar Karmakar, Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Prince of Wales Hospital, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Faculty of Medicine, Shatin, New Territories, Hong Kong; karmakar{at}cuhk.edu.hk

Abstract

Ultrasound-guided erector spinae plane block (ESPB) is currently used as a component of multimodal analgesic regimen in a multitude of indications but the mechanism by which it produces anterior thoracic analgesia remains a subject of controversy. This is primarily the result of ESPB’s failure to consistently produce cutaneous sensory blockade (to pinprick and cold sensation) over the anterior hemithorax. Nevertheless, ESPB appears to provide ‘clinically meaningful analgesia’ in various clinical settings. Lately, it has been proposed that the discrepancy between clinical analgesia and cutaneous sensory blockade could be the result of differential nerve blockade at the level of the dorsal root ganglion. In particular, it is claimed that at a low concentration of local anesthetic, the C nerve fibers would be preferentially blocked than the Aδ nerve fibers. However, the proposal that isolated C fiber mediated analgesia with preserved Aδ fiber mediated cold and pinprick sensation after an ESPB is unlikely, has never been demonstrated and, thus, without sufficient evidence, cannot be attributed to the presumed analgesic effects of an ESPB.

  • analgesia
  • Anesthesia, Local
  • Pain, Postoperative
  • Pain Perception
  • Pharmacology

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

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.

Footnotes

  • X @Sivakumar_SRK

  • Contributors MKK was involved with conception, planning, review of the literature, preparation of the manuscript and is the guarantor. RKS was involved with review of the literature, preparation of the manuscript and editing of the manuscript. CL was involved with review of the literature and editing of the manuscript.

  • 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.