Akademik Veri Yönetim Sistemi
EUROPEAN SPINE JOURNAL, cilt.33, sa.1, ss.118-125, 2024 (SCI-Expanded)
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 x 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.