Article Text
PDF
Abstract
Background While superficial parasternal intercostal plane blocks can improve analgesia after cardiac surgery, the optimal site and the number of injections remain uncertain. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of single versus double injections of superficial parasternal blocks, hypothesizing that double injections would achieve superior cutaneous sensory blockade.
Methods 70 cardiac patients undergoing median sternotomy were randomly assigned to receive either single or double injections of superficial parasternal blocks bilaterally. Each patient received 40 mL of 0.25% bupivacaine with epinephrine 5 µg/mL and dexamethasone 10 mg. The single-injection group received 20 mL/side at the third costal cartilage, while the double-injection group received 10 mL/injection at the second and fourth costal cartilages. The primary outcome was a successful block, defined as sensory loss in the T2–T6 dermatomes. Secondary outcomes included sensory block of T1, T7, and T8 dermatomes, block-related complications, intraoperative hemodynamics, postoperative pain intensity, opioid consumption, and recovery quality.
Results Double injections achieved an overall higher success rate compared with the single-injection technique (81% vs 51%, relative risk 1.6; 95% CI 1.2, 2.0; p<0.001). Additionally, higher blockade percentages were observed in dermatomes T1 (83% vs 59%, p=0.003), T7 (67% vs 46%, p=0.017), and T8 (61% vs 39%, p=0.011) with double injections. Other secondary outcomes did not differ significantly between groups.
Conclusions Compared with single injection, double injections of superficial parasternal blocks provided more reliable coverage of the T2–T6 dermatomes, crucial for median sternotomy. However, no differences were observed in intraoperative hemodynamic effects or postoperative pain control after cardiac surgery.
Trial registration number TCTR20230408004.
- Nerve Block
- Ultrasonography
- Analgesia
- Pain Management
- Acute Pain
Data availability statement
All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as online supplemental information.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Data availability statement
All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as online supplemental information.
Footnotes
Contributors AS, PLapisatepun, PLeurcharusmee and CS participated in the conceptualization, methodology, investigation, formal analysis, writing original draft, reviewing, and editing manuscript, and final manuscript approval. TP participated in conceptualization, methodology, investigation, reviewing and editing manuscript, and final manuscript approval. WS, SB, NB, KP and AP participated in the conceptualization, investigation, final manuscript approval. AS is the guarantor.
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.
Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.