• Paul I Bhalla, Stuart Solomon, Ray Zhang, Cordelie E Witt, Arman Dagal, and Aaron M Joffe.
• Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Harborview Medical Center, Seattle, Washington, USA.
• Trauma Surg Acute Care Open. 2021 Jan 1; 6 (1): e000621.

BackgroundPain from rib fractures is associated with significant pulmonary morbidity. Epidural and paravertebral blocks (EPVBs) have been recommended as part of a multimodal approach to rib fracture pain, but their utility is often challenging in the trauma intensive care unit (ICU). The serratus anterior plane block (SAPB) has potential as an alternative approach for chest wall analgesia.MethodsThis retrospective study compared critically injured adults sustaining multiple rib fractures who had SAPB (n=14) to EPVB (n=25). Patients were matched by age, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiology Physical Status, whether the patient required intubation, number of rib fractures and injury severity score. Outcome measures included hospital length of stay, ICU length of stay, preblock and post block rapid shallow breathing index (RSBI) in intubated patients, pain scores and morphine equivalent doses administered 24-hour preblock and post-block in non-intubated patients, and mortality.ResultsThere were no demographic differences between the two groups after matching. Nearly all of the patients who received either SAPB or EPVB demonstrated a reduction in RSBI or pain scores. The preblock RSBI was higher in the serratus anterior plane block group, but there was no difference between any of the other outcome measures.DiscussionThis retrospective study of our institutional data suggests no difference in efficacy between the serratus anterior plane block and neuraxial block for traumatic rib fracture pain in critically ill patients, but the sample size was too small to show statistical equivalence. Serratus anterior plane block is technically easier to perform with fewer theoretical contraindications compared with traditional neuraxial block. Further study with prospective comparative trials is warranted.Level Of EvidenceRetrospective matched cohort; Level IV.© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

5 keywords...

hide…