Intercostal Nerve Block Matches Epidural for Pain Relief in minimally invasive Lung Surgery: JAMA

Published On 2025-07-14 15:45 GMT   |   Update On 2025-07-14 15:45 GMT
Advertisement

Researchers have found in OPtriAL randomized study that single-shot intercostal nerve block was noninferior to thoracic epidural analgesia for pain control in minimally invasive lung resections. In contrast, continuous paravertebral block was less effective than epidural. For patients at low risk of conversion to thoracotomy, intercostal nerve block is recommended as the preferred analgesic technique due to its less invasive nature and comparable efficacy.

Effective pain control after thoracic surgery is crucial for enhanced recovery. While thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA) traditionally ensures optimal analgesia, its adverse effects conflict with the principles of enhanced recovery after thoracic surgery. High-quality randomized data regarding less invasive alternative locoregional techniques are lacking. A study was done to evaluate the efficacy of continuous paravertebral block (PVB) and a single-shot intercostal nerve block (ICNB) as alternatives to TEA. This randomized clinical trial compared PVB and ICNB vs TEA (1:1:1) in patients undergoing thoracoscopic anatomical lung resection at 11 hospitals in the Netherlands and Belgium, enrolled from March 5, 2021, to September 5, 2023. The study used a noninferiority design for pain and a superiority design for quality of recovery (QoR). Primary outcomes were pain, defined as mean proportion of pain scores 4 or greater during postoperative days (POD) 0 through 2 (noninferiority margin for the upper limit [UL] 1-sided 98.65% CI, 17.5%), and QoR, assessed with the QoR-15 questionnaire at POD 1 and 2. Secondary measures included opioid consumption, mobilization, complications, and hospitalization. Results A total of 450 patients were randomized, with 389 included in the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis (mean [SD] age, 66 [9] years; 208 female patients [54%] and 181 male [46%]). Of these 389 patients, 131 received TEA, 134 received PVB, and 124 received ICNB. The mean proportions of pain scores 4 or greater were 20.7% (95% CI, 16.5%-24.9%) for TEA, 35.5% (95% CI, 30.1%-40.8%) for PVB, and 29.5% (95% CI, 24.6%-34.4%) for ICNB. While PVB was inferior to TEA regarding pain (ITT: UL, 22.4%; analysis per-protocol [PP]: UL, 23.1%), ICNB was noninferior to TEA (ITT: UL, 16.1%; PP: UL, 17.0%). The mean (SD) QoR-15 scores were similar across groups: 104.96 (20.47) for TEA, 106.06 (17.94; P = .641) for PVB (P = .64 for that comparison), and 106.85 (21.11) for ICNB (P = .47 for that comparison). Both ICNB and PVB significantly reduced opioid consumption and enhanced mobility compared with TEA, with no significant differences in complications. Hospitalization was shorter in the ICNB group. After thoracoscopic anatomical lung resection, only ICNB provides noninferior pain relief compared with TEA. ICNB emerges as an alternative to TEA, although risks and benefits should be weighed for optimal personalized pain control.


Reference:

Spaans LN, Dijkgraaf MGW, Susa D, et al. Intercostal or Paravertebral Block vs Thoracic Epidural in Lung Surgery: A Randomized Noninferiority Trial. JAMA Surg. Published online June 25, 2025. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2025.1899


Keywords:

Intercostal, Nerve, Block, Matches, Epidural, Pain, Relief, minimally, invasive, Lung Surgery, JAMA, Spaans LN, Dijkgraaf MGW, Susa D,



Tags:    
Article Source : JAMA Surgery

Disclaimer: This website is primarily for healthcare professionals. The content here does not replace medical advice and should not be used as medical, diagnostic, endorsement, treatment, or prescription advice. Medical science evolves rapidly, and we strive to keep our information current. If you find any discrepancies, please contact us at corrections@medicaldialogues.in. Read our Correction Policy here. Nothing here should be used as a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. We do not endorse any healthcare advice that contradicts a physician's guidance. Use of this site is subject to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and Advertisement Policy. For more details, read our Full Disclaimer here.

NOTE: Join us in combating medical misinformation. If you encounter a questionable health, medical, or medical education claim, email us at factcheck@medicaldialogues.in for evaluation.

Our comments section is governed by our Comments Policy . By posting comments at Medical Dialogues you automatically agree with our Comments Policy , Terms And Conditions and Privacy Policy .

Similar News

Medical Bulletin 10/Jul/2025