• Selcuk Alver, Bahadir Ciftci, Erkan Cem Celik, Maral Sargolzaeimoghaddam, Ahmet Cetinkal, Cem Erdogan, and Ali Ahiskalioglu.
• Department of Anesthesiology and Reanimation, Istanbul Medipol University, Bagcilar, 34040, Istanbul, Turkey.
• Eur Spine J. 2024 Jan 1; 33 (1): 118125118-125.

PurposeIn this prospective, randomized study, we aimed to compare the global recovery scores and postoperative pain management between US-guided mTLIP block versus QLB after lumbar spine surgery.Methods60 patients with ASA score I-II planned for microendoscopic discectomy under general anesthesia were included. We allocated the patients into two groups: the QLB group (n = 30) or the mTLIP group (n = 30). QLB and mTLIP was performed with 30 ml 0.25% bupivacaine in the groups. Paracetamol 1 g IV 3 × 1 was ordered to the patients at the postoperative period. If the NRS score was ≥ 4, 1 mg/kg tramadol IV was administered as rescue analgesia.ResultsThere was a significant between-group difference in the mean global QoR-40 scores 24 h postsurgery. Both the static and dynamic NRS scores were significantly lower in the postoperative 1-16 h period in the mTLIP group. There was no significant between-group difference in the NRS scores 24 h postsurgery. There was no significant between-group difference in postoperative rescue analgesia consumption. However, the need for rescue analgesia was lower in the postoperative first 5 h in the mTLIP group, and survival probability was higher in the mTLIP group according to Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. There was no significant difference between the groups in the rate of adverse events.ConclusionmTLIP provided superior analgesia compared to posterior QLB. The QoR-40 scores in the mTLIP group were higher than those in the QLB group.© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.

20 keywords...

hide…