Skip to main content
Download PDF

Analgesic effect of erector spinae plane block in adults undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BMC Anesthesiology volume 23, Article number: 7 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is the gold standard surgical procedure for treating gallstone disease. Despite it being minimally invasive, various medications and methods are used to alleviate postoperative pain, and some patients still experience moderate-to-severe pain. This is a crucial problem that must be solved to avoid chronic pain. As part of postoperative multimodal analgesia, regional block is being increasingly applied in surgery under ultrasound guidance. We aimed to evaluate the analgesic effect of erector spinae plane block in adult patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Methods

PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and Web of Science were searched for randomized controlled trials investigating the efficacy of erector spinae plane block on postoperative pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The primary outcome was the postoperative pain score. The secondary outcomes were the cumulative intraoperative and postoperative opioid consumption at 24 h, incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting, and shoulder pain after surgery. The results were pooled using the fixed- or random-effects model with Review Manager 5.3.

Results

Fifteen randomized controlled trials involving 947 patients were included in the analysis. Postoperative pain score in the erector spinae plane block group was lower than that in the control group at postoperative 12 h (MD − 0.81, 95% CI − 1.1 to − 0.51, p < 0.00001) and 24 h (MD − 0.41, 95% CI − 0.62 to − 0.19, p = 0.0002). Cumulative opioid consumption was lower in the erector spinae plane block group than in the control group at postoperative 24 h (MD − 7.88, 95% CI − 10.17 to − 5.58, p < 0.00001). The erector spinae plane block group also experienced a lower incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting than the control group. Opioid consumption and the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting were similar between the erector spinae plane block group and other block groups, including the oblique subcostal transversus abdominis plane block and quadratus lumborum block groups.

Conclusions

Ultrasound-guided erector spinae plane block provides effective postoperative analgesia in adults undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Peer Review reports

Background

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is the most commonly performed surgical procedure for cholelithiasis management. Although it is minimally invasive and is associated with a shorter hospital stay and faster recovery than open surgery, some patients still experience moderate-to-severe postoperative pain [1,2,3]. Acute pain after LC consists of somatic, parietal, and referred pain caused by trocar insertion, gall bladder resection, carbon dioxide insufflation, and other factors [4, 5]. If handled improperly, some patients (3–56% according to different studies) may experience prolonged or chronic pain [6]. Therefore, various drugs have been used worldwide to relieve postoperative pain.

Lately, under ultrasound guidance, regional blocks have been performed more accurately, providing better postoperative analgesia management [7, 8]. The erector spinae plane block (ESPB), first described by Forero et al. in 2016 for the treatment of thoracic neuropathic pain [9], has proven effective for acute pain control in abdominal, spinal, breast, and other surgeries [10]. As it can block sympathetic nerve fibers and the ventral rami of spinal nerves [11,12,13]and is easier to perform and safer than paravertebral block, it is quickly gaining popularity among anesthesiologists and applied in various surgeries as a part of multimodal analgesic regimens.

In the past 6 years, an increasing number of studies have been published to support the efficacy of ESPB, including case reports, clinical trials, and meta-analyses involving different surgical types [14, 15]. Hence, we aimed to evaluate the analgesic effect of ESPB in adults undergoing LC and compare it with other regional blocks.

Methods

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) was followed to perform this meta-analysis [16]. This meta-analysis was conducted using a predesigned protocol registered with PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42022336837).

Systematic search and inclusion criteria

All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ESPB with no block or other regional blocks in adults undergoing LC were included. Electronic databases including PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and Web of Science were comprehensively searched for RCTs published before May 30, 2022. Literature search was conducted using a combination of medical subject headings and entry terms, including “(Laparoscopic or Celioscopic) and Cholecystectom*”, “erector spinae plane block”, “erector spinae plane”, “ESPB”, “ESP”, and “ESB”. A detailed search strategy for each database is available in Additional File 1. In addition, the reference lists of all included studies were checked for any potential additional publications.

Selection of included studies and data extraction

Two experienced authors (Xiaoli Yang and Yu Zhang) independently screened the titles and abstracts of each article to eliminate repeated and irrelevant studies. The full texts of potentially eligible studies were then reviewed, and articles that meet the eligibility criteria were included. The data were extracted by two independent authors (Xiaoli Yang and Yu Zhang). Disagreements were resolved through discussion. If necessary, a third reviewer participated in the discussion to reach a consensus. The following data were extracted: first author, year of publication, sample size, type of surgery, ESPB target spine level and local anesthetics, control group technique, intraoperative opioid consumption, postoperative analgesia protocol, postoperative pain score and opioid consumption, postoperative nausea and vomiting(PONV), shoulder pain, and block-related complications. Data presented in the form of graphs were extracted using Plot Digitizer, a graph digitizing software.

Risk-of-bias assessment

Two reviewers (Xiaoli Yang and Yu Zhang) independently assessed the quality of included trials using the Cochrane Collaboration tool [17]. Each included trial was assessed as low risk, unclear, or high risk in the following seven domains: random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants and personnel, blinding of outcome assessment, incomplete outcome data, selecting reporting, and other sources of bias.

Primary outcome

Postoperative pain score at postoperative 12 and 24 h.

Secondary outcomes

Cumulative intraoperative and postoperative opioid consumption at 24 h, incidence of PONV, shoulder pain, and other block-related complications after surgery.

Meta-analysis

The meta-analysis was conducted using Review Manager (version 5.3; Nordic Cochrane Centre). For dichotomous variables, the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated. For continuous variables, the mean difference (MD) and 95% CI were calculated. If continuous variables were expressed as median and range (minimum to maximum or interquartile range), Luo and Wan’s formula was used to estimate the mean and standard deviation [18, 19]. If the standard deviation was missing, we used that of RCTs that conducted the same intervention for calculation. Higgins’s I2 statistical test was used to assess the statistical heterogeneity of the pooled results [20]. I2 between 0 and 25% was interpreted as no heterogeneity, 25–50% as low heterogeneity, 50–75% as moderate heterogeneity, and 75–100% as high heterogeneity. The fixed- or random-effects model was selected according to the level of heterogeneity. If I2 was < 50%, the fixed-effects model was selected, whereas if I2 was > 50%, the random-effects model was selected. A trial sequential analysis of the primary outcome was performed to confirm whether the sample size was sufficient and the results were stable or not [21]. Statistical significance was set at P < 0.05.

Results

A literature search identified 195 records based on the eligibility criteria, and 74 articles were excluded for duplication. After screening the titles and abstracts, 96 studies were excluded, and the full text of the remaining 25 potentially eligible studies was reviewed. Among them, five studies were excluded because of the pediatric population, two articles were excluded due to retrospective study, two for commentary, and one for conference abstract. Therefore, 15 RCTs involving 947 patients were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis [22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36], and the detailed flow diagram is presented in Fig. 1. The characteristics of the included studies are summarized in Table 1. The risk of bias is shown in Fig. 2.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Flow diagram of the included and excluded studies

Full size image
Table 1 Characteristics of included studies
Full size table
Fig. 2
figure 2

Risk-of-bias summary: each risk-of-bias item for each included study

Full size image

ESPB vs. control

Ten RCTs including 612 patients reported postoperative pain scores using a numerical rating scale or visual analog scale at a predefined time point. The pooled results demonstrated that ESPB significantly lowered the pain score compared with the control group at postoperative 12 h (MD − 0.81, 95% CI − 1.1 to − 0.51, p < 0.00001) and 24 h (MD − 0.41, 95% CI − 0.62 to − 0.19, p = 0.0002). Low-to-moderate level of heterogeneity was observed (Fig. 3). The trial sequential analysis was performed on the pain score at postoperative 24 h, indicating that firm evidence was reached regarding the contribution of ESPB to decrease the pain score at postoperative 24 h. The cumulative Z-curve crosses the monitoring boundary curve before the accumulated information reaches the required information size, indicating that the relief of postoperative pain by ESPB has been proven (Fig. 4).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Forest plot for postoperative pain scores. Pain score at postoperative12 and 24 h was significantly lower in the ESPB group than in the control group

Full size image
Fig. 4
figure 4

Trial sequential analysis for pain score at postoperative 24 h. The cumulative Z-curve crosses the monitoring boundary curve, indicating firm evidence that the ESPB group showed superior findings than the control group

Full size image

Postoperative opioid consumption was reported in nine RCTs involving 501 patients. Among them, tramadol was used in six RCTs, morphine in two RCTs, and fentanyl in one RCT. To facilitate data analysis, tramadol and fentanyl were converted to morphine-equivalent doses based on previous studies suggesting that intravenous administration of 100 mg tramadol or 100 μg fentanyl was equivalent to 10 mg morphine. The results showed that opioid consumption at postoperative 24 h was significantly lower in the ESPB group than in the control group (MD − 7.88, 95% CI − 10.17 to − 5.58, p < 0.00001). High heterogeneity was observed (Fig. 5a).

Fig. 5
figure 5

Forest plot for postoperative and intraoperative opioid consumption. Opioid consumption at postoperative 24 h was significantly lower in the ESPB group than in the control group. Intraoperative fentanyl consumption was comparable between the ESPB and control groups

Full size image

Four RCTs assessed the intraoperative opioid consumption. Unexpectedly, no significant difference was noted between the ESPB and control groups (MD − 4.84, 95% CI − 21.61 to 11.94, p = 0.57). High heterogeneity was observed (Fig. 5b).

Five RCTs reported postoperative nausea (PON), and four RCTs reported postoperative vomiting (POV). The results showed that ESPB reduced the incidence of PON (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.3 to 0.74, p = 0.001) and POV (RR 0.5, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.89, p = 0.02). No heterogeneity was observed among the studies. In one study included in this meta-analysis, no patient experienced PONV. Two studies reported that PONV showed no significant differences between the two groups (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.3 to 2.41, p = 0.77; Fig. 6).

Fig. 6
figure 6

Forest plot for postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). Incidence of PONV was significantly lower in the ESPB group than in the control group

Full size image

Three RCTs assessed LC-related shoulder pain, and the results showed no significant difference between the ESPB and control groups (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.37, p = 0.11; Fig. 7).

Fig. 7
figure 7

Forest plot for postoperative shoulder pain. Shoulder pain was comparable between the ESPB and control groups

Full size image

ESPB vs. other blocks

Three RCTs reported the postoperative opioid consumption between the ESPB and oblique subcostal transversus abdominis plane block (OSTAPB) groups, and one study assessed this outcome between the ESPB and quadratus lumborum block (QLB). Pooled results suggested that no significant difference in the requirement of opioids between the ESPB and OSTAPB groups (MD − 3.77, 95% CI − 7.7 to 0.16, p = 0.06; Fig. 8). PONV was reported in three RCTs, and no significant difference was observed (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.53, p = 0.73; Fig. 9).

Fig. 8
figure 8

Forest plot for postoperative opioid consumption. Opioid consumption at postoperative 24 h was comparable between the ESPB and OSTAPB groups

Full size image
Fig. 9
figure 9

Forest plot for postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). Incidence of PONV was comparable between the ESPB and other groups

Full size image

Block-related complications

All included studies were carefully reviewed, except for one study that reported intraoperative bradycardia in two patients in the ESPB group and in one patient in the OSTAPB group, with no significant difference. Other intraoperative and postoperative adverse reactions or complications, including bleeding, hematoma, subcutaneous emphysema, pneumothorax, local anesthetic toxicity, and pruritus, were not reported. This may have resulted from the widespread use of ultrasound. Ultrasound facilitates the accurate identification of the target fascial planes and precise delivery of local anesthetics for safer conduct of the block.

Discussion

Our meta-analysis demonstrated the clinical role of ESPB in postoperative pain control in adults undergoing LC. Postoperative pain scores at 12 and 24 h and opioid consumption during the first 24 h were lower in the ESPB group than in the control group. Evidence indicates that ESPB also reduced the incidence of PONV compared with the control group. However, although ESPB was implemented, intraoperative opioid consumption was not reduced during surgery compared with that in the control group. In addition, more evidence is needed in the future to compare the analgesic effects of ESPB and OSTAPB in LC.

The prevention and management of postoperative acute pain have been a worldwide issue worthy of attention that need to be addressed. Over the last few decades, opioids have been widely used in the management of surgery-related acute pain. Although opioids relieve pain in humans, they also cause problems. Addiction, chronic pain, prolonged length of hospital stay, related morbidity and mortality, and many adverse reactions to opioids strongly force us to face and look for new ways to manage pain [37]. Various regional blocks have recently been applied in surgery to achieve desired pain control and reduce opioid consumption. ESPB is a relatively novel regional block, and although the mechanism is still controversial, many clinical trials have confirmed its effectiveness in pain control and is being quickly applied as a part of multimodal postoperative analgesia. A previous meta-analysis by Koo et al. revealed that the ESPB group had lower the pain scores at postoperative 12 h than the control group, but no significant difference was noted at 24 h [38]. In our updated analysis, ESPB reduced the pain score at postoperative 24 h. To our knowledge, this is the first meta-analysis to show the long-lasting analgesic effect of ESPB at 24 h in LC. Postoperative opioid consumption was also lower than that in the control group, which is consistent with the findings of previous studies [39,40,41]. Unexpectedly, no significant difference was noted in the intraoperative opioid consumption between the ESPB and control groups. Among them, fentanyl was administered during the induction and maintenance of anesthesia; the surgery time in these studies ranged from 60 to 100 min, and addtional fentanyl may be administered in both groups. Further studies adopting opioid infusion, rather than single injection, may detect differences in intraoperative opioid consumption.

Postoperative nausea and vomiting are two common adverse events, with an estimated incidence of 30%; in high-risk patients, it can be as high as 80% [42]. The management of PONV is complex. In the fourth consensus guideline for the management of PONV, opioids were recognized as a risk factor for PONV in adults and showed dose dependency [43]. High-level evidence recommends reducing opioid use and combining multimodal analgesia, such as regional blocks, to prevent PONV [44, 45]. A previous meta-analysis by Daghmouri et al. reported no significant difference between the ESPB and control groups, but only included five RCTs [46]. Our meta-analysis found that ESPB can reduce the incidence of PON and POV after surgery, which is consistent with the results of Koo’s study [38]. Regional blocks such as ESPB, as mentioned above, possibly reduce the incidence of nausea and vomiting by reducing opioid consumption.

Compared with other blocks such as OSTAPB and QLB, no significant difference was observed between ESPB and OSTAPB in terms of postoperative opioid consumption, which is consistent with the findings of Koo’s study [38]. Although the exact mechanism of ESPB is unclear, the available evidence shows that the physical spread of local anesthetic may be the most likely mechanism. Although the extent of the spread of local anesthetic remains controversial, most studies have shown that local anesthetic may spread to the paravertebral space and block the dorsal and ventral rami of the spinal nerves after erector spinae block in different planes, and few studies have shown that it can block the sympathetic nerve [11]. However, OSTAPB only produces sensory blocks in the somatic branches of the spinal nerves. Thus, ESPB may have a potential analgesic mechanism for visceral pain and is expected to provide better analgesia than OSTAPB. The lack of difference in opioid consumption may have resulted from the three limited included studies. The incidence of PONV was also not significantly different between them. As only one study comparing ESPB and QLB in LC was included, further studies are required to answer the question of analgesic effect comparing ESPB and QLB.

This meta-analysis has some limitations that should be considered when interpreting the results. First, ESPB was conducted after anesthesia induction in some studies; therefore, any possible block failure could not be identified. Second, different block levels from T7 to T9, the concentration of different local anesthetics, and different types of analgesics may have influenced the results, and further studies are required to determine the optimal concentration, volume, and type of local anesthetic. Third, the heterogeneity cannot be ignored.

Conclusions

ESPB plays an important role in the management of acute postoperative pain. To achieve opioid-sparing anesthesia, regional blocks such as ESPB should be advocated as part of multimodal analgesia for enhanced recovery after surgery. Further studies comparing ESPB, OSTAPB, and QLB are required to confirm their analgesic effects in LC.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

LC:

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy

ESPB:

Erector spinae plane bolck

PRISMA:

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses

RCTs:

randomized controlled trials

PONV:

postoperative nausea and vomiting

RR:

risk ratio

MD:

mean difference

OSTAPB:

oblique subcostal transversus abdominis plane block

QLB:

quadratus Lumborum Block

References

  1. Dua A, Aziz A, Desai SS, McMater J, Kuy S. National trends in the adoption of laparoscopic cholecystectomy over 7 years in the United States and impact of laparoscopic approaches stratified by age. Minim Invasive Surg. 2014;2014:1–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Gossage JA, Forshaw MJ. Prevalence and outcome of litigation claims in England after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Int J Clin Pract. 2010;64:1832–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Mitra S, Khandelwal P, Roberts K, Kumar S, Vadivelu N. Pain relief in laparoscopic cholecystectomy-a review of the current options. Pain Pract. 2012;12:485–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Ekstein P, Szold A, Sagie B, Werbin N, Klausner JM, Weinbroum AA. Laparoscopic surgery may be associated with severe pain and high analgesia requirements in the immediate postoperative period. Ann Surg. 2006;1:41–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Singla S, Mittal G, Raghav MRK. Pain management after laparoscopic cholecystectomy-a randomized prospective trial of low pressure and standard pressure pneumoperitoneum. J Clin Diagn Res. 2014;8(2):92–4.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Blichfeldt-Eckhardt MR, Ording H, Andersen C, Licht PB, Toft P. Early visceral pain predicts chronic pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Pain. 2014;155:2400–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Oksar M, Koyuncu O, Turhanoglu S, Temiz M, Oran MC. Transversus abdominis plane block as a component of multimodal analgesia for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J Clin Anesth. 2016;34:72–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Wahal C, Kumar A, Pyati S. Advances in regional anaesthesia: a review of current practice, newer techniques and outcomes. Indian J Anaesth. 2018;62:94e102.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Forero M, Adhikary SD, Lopez H, Tsui C, Chin KJ. The erector spinae plane block: a novel analgesic technique in thoracic neuropathic pain. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2016;41:621e7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Cui Y, Wang Y, Yang J, Ran L, Zhang Q, Huang Q, et al. The effect of single-shot erector Spinae plane block (ESPB) on opioid consumption for various surgeries: a Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Journal of pain. Research. 2022;15:683–99.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Chin KJ, El-Boghdadly K. Mechanisms of action of the erector spinae plane (ESP) block: a narrative review. Can J Anaesth. 2021;68(3):387–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Yang HM, Choi YJ, Kwon HJ, O J, Cho TH, Kim SH. Comparison of injectate spread and nerve involvement between retrolaminar and erector spinae plane blocks in the thoracic region: a cadaveric study. Anaesthesia. 2018;73(10):1244–50.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Chin KJ, Malhas L, Perlas A. The erector spinae plane block provides visceral abdominal analgesia in bariatric surgery: a report of 3 cases. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2017;42:372–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Balaban O, Aydin T, Yaman M. Is ultrasound guided erector spinae plane block sufficient for surgical anesthesia in minor surgery at thoracal region? J Clin Anesth. 2018;47:7–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Krishna SN, Chauhan S, Bhoi D, Kaushal B, Hasija S, Sangdup T, et al. Bilateral erector spinae plane block for acute post-surgical pain in adult cardiac surgical patients: a randomized controlled trial. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2019;33(2):368–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman D. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ. 2009;339:b2535.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Higgins J, Altman D, Gøtzsche P, Jüni P, Moher D, Oxman A, et al. The cochrane collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011;343:d5928.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Luo D, Wan X, Liu J, Tong T. Optimally estimating the sample mean from the sample size, median, mid-range and/or mid-quartile range. Stat Methods Med Res. 2018;27:1785–805.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Wan X, Wang W, Liu J, Tong T. Estimating the sample mean and standard deviation from the sample size, median, range and/or interquartile range. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014;14:135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Higgins J, Thompson S. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Statist Med. 2002;21:1539–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Casans-Francés R, Roberto-Alcácer AT, Gómez-Ríos MA, Calvo-Vecino JM. The importance of trial sequential analysis in the evaluation of the results of a meta-analysis. Minerva Anestesiol. 2019;85(4):342–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Aksu C, Kus A, Yorukoglu HU, Kilic CT, Gurkan Y. The effect of erector spinae plane block on postoperative pain following laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized controlled study. Anestezi Dergisi. 2019;27:9–14.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Altiparmak B, Toker MK, Uysal AI, Ku sçuY, Demirbilek SG. Efficacy of ultrasound-guided erector spinae plane block for analgesia after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized controlled trial. Braz J Anesthesiol. 2019;69:561–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Canitez A, Kozanhan B, Aksoy N, Yildiz M, Tutar MS. Effect of erector spinae plane block on the postoperative quality of recovery after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective double-blind study. Br J Anaesth. 2021;127(4):629–35.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Kwon HM, Kim DH, Jeong SM, Choi KT, Park S, Kwon HJ, et al. Does erector Spinae plane block have a visceral analgesic effect?: a randomized controlled trial. Sci Rep. 2020;10:8389.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Sethi D, Garg G. Evaluation of postoperative analgesia of erector spinae plane block in elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized controlled trial. Turk J Anaesthesiol Reanim. 2021;49(6):432–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Tulgar S, Kapakli MS, Senturk O, Selvi O, Serifsoy TE, Ozer Z. Evaluation of ultrasound-guided erector spinae plane block for postoperative analgesia in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trial. J Clin Anesth. 2018;49:101–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Verma R, Srivastava D, Saxena R, Singh TK, Gupta D, Agarwal A, et al. Ultrasound-guided bilateral erector spinae plane block for postoperative analgesia in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized controlled trial. Anesth Essays Res. 2020;14:226–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Vrsajkov V, Ilic N, Uvelin A, Ilic R, Lukic-Sarkanovic M, Plecac-Duric A. Erector spinae plane block reduces pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Anaesthesist. 2021;70(SUPPL 1):48–52.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Yildiz M, Kozanhan B, Iyisoy MS, Canıtez A, Aksoy N, Eryigit A. The effect of erector spinae plane block on postoperative analgesia and respiratory function in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a double-blind randomized controlled trial. J Clin Anesth. 2021;74:110403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Peker K, Akçaboy ZN, Aydın G, Gençay I, Sahin AT, Koçak YF, et al. The effect of erector Spinae plane block on laparoscopic cholecystectomy anesthesia: analysis of opioid consumption. Sevoflurane Consumption, and Cost J Laparoendosc Adv S. 2020;30:725–9.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Altıparmak B, Korkmaz Toker M, Uysal AI, Kusçu Y, Gümüş DS. Ultrasound-guided erector spinae plane block versus oblique subcostal transversus abdominis plane block for postoperative analgesia of adult patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy: randomized, controlled trial. J Clin Anesth. 2019;57:31–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Ibrahim M. Erector spinae plane block in laparoscopic cholecystectomy, is there a difference? A randomized controlled trial. Anesth Essays Res. 2020;14(1):119–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Ozdemir H, Araz C, Karaca O, Turk E. Comparison of ultrasound-guided erector Spinae plane block and subcostal Transversus abdominis plane block for postoperative analgesia after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized. Controlled Trial. 2022;35(4):870–7.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Sahu L, Behera SK, Satapathy GC, Saxena S, Priyadarshini S, Sahoo RK. Comparison of analgesic efficacy of erector spinae and oblique subcostal transverse abdominis plane block in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J Clin Diagn Res. 2021;15(9):UC09–13.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Aygun H, Kavrut Ozturk N, Pamukcu AS, Inal A, Kiziloglu I, Thomas DT, et al. Comparison of ultrasound guided erector Spinae plane block and quadratus lumborum block for postoperative analgesia in laparoscopic cholecystectomy patients; a prospective randomized study. J Clin Anesth. 2020;62:109696.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Shafi S, Collinsworth AW, Copeland LA, Ogola GO, Qiu T, Kouznetsova M, et al. Association of Opioid-Related Adverse Drug Events with Clinical and Cost Outcomes among Surgical Patients in a large integrated health care delivery system. JAMA Surg. 2018;153:757–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Koo CH, Hwang JY, Shin HJ, Ryu JH. The effects of erector Spinae plane block in terms of postoperative analgesia in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Clin Med. 2020;9:2928.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Jiao B, Chen H, Chen MY, Lu PL, Liu J, Chen C. Opioid-sparing effects of ultrasound-guided erector spinae plane block for adult patients undergoing surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Pain Practice. 2022;22(3):391–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Fanelli A, Torrano V, Cozowicz C, Mariano ER, Balzani E. The opioid sparing effect of erector spinae plane block for various surgeries: a meta-analysis of randomized-controlled trials. Minerva Anestesiol. 2021;87(8):903–14.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Kendall MC, Alves L, Traill LL, De Oliveira GS. The effect of ultrasound-guided erector spinae plane block on postsurgical pain: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. BMC Anesthesiol. 2020;20:99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Apfel CC, Läärä E, Koivuranta M, Greim CA, Roewer N. A simplified risk score for predicting postoperative nausea and vomiting: conclusions from cross-validations between two centers. Anesthesiology. 1999;91:693–700.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Roberts GW, Bekker TB, Carlsen HH, Moffatt CH, Slattery PJ, McClure AF. Postoperative nausea and vomiting are strongly influenced by postoperative opioid use in a doserelated manner. Anesth Analg. 2005;101:1343–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Liu SS, Strodtbeck WM, Richman JM, Wu CL. A comparison of regional versus general anesthesia for ambulatory anesthesia: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Anesth Analg. 2005;101:1634–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Marret E, Kurdi O, Zufferey P, Bonnet F. Effects of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs on patient-controlled analgesia morphine side effects: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Anesthesiology. 2005;102:1249–60.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Daghmouri MA, Akremi S, Chaouch MA, Mesbahi M, Amouri N, Jaoua H, et al. Bilateral erector Spinae plane block for postoperative analgesia in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a systematic review and Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Pain Pract. 2021;21(3):357–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

None.

Funding

This work did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the.

public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Anesthesiology, The Third People’s Hospital of Chengdu, Chengdu, Sichuan, China

    Xiaoli Yang, Yu Zhang, Yong Chen, Mingxing Xu, Xue Lei & Qiang Fu

Authors
  1. Xiaoli Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yu Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yong Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mingxing Xu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Xue Lei
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Qiang Fu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Xiaoli Yang and Yu Zhang contributed to the design and implementation of the manuscript, Yong Chen and Xue Lei contributed to the analysis of the results, writing of the manuscript, Mingxing Xu and Qiang Fu Supervisd final version of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final published version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Qiang Fu.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1.

Search strategy.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yang, X., Zhang, Y., Chen, Y. et al. Analgesic effect of erector spinae plane block in adults undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. BMC Anesthesiol 23, 7 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12871-023-01969-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12871-023-01969-6

Keywords

BMC Anesthesiology

ISSN: 1471-2253

Contact us