Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The Efficacy of Different Volumes on Ultrasound-Guided Type-I Pectoral Nerve Block for Postoperative Analgesia After Subpectoral Breast Augmentation: A Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Study

  • Original Article
  • Breast Surgery
  • Published:
Aesthetic Plastic Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

PECS type-1 block, a US-guided superficial interfacial block, provides effective analgesia after breast surgery. Aesthetic breast augmentation is one of the most common surgical procedures in plastic surgery. Subpectoral prostheses cause severe pain. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of different volumes of the solution on the efficacy of PECS type-I block for postoperative analgesia after breast augmentation surgery.

Methods

Ninety ASA status I–II female patients aged between 18 and 65 years who scheduled breast augmentation surgery under general anesthesia were included in this study. The patients were randomly divided into three groups of 30 patients each (Group 20 = 20 ml of anaesthetic solution, Group 30 = 30 ml anaesthetic solution, and Group K = Control group). Postoperative assessment was performed using the VAS score. The VAS scores were recorded postoperatively at 1, 2, 4, 8, 16 and 24 h.

Results

Fentanyl consumption was statistically significantly lower in Group 20 and Group 30 compared to the Control group (p < 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in fentanyl consumption between Group 20 and Group 30. The right and left VAS scores were statistically significantly lower in Groups 20 and 30 than in the Control group (p < 0.05). There was no statistical difference in terms of VAS scores between Group 20 and Group 30. The use of rescue analgesia was statistically lower in Groups 20 and 30.

Conclusions

PECS type-1 block using 20 ml of 0.25% bupivacaine can provide effective analgesia after breast augmentation surgery.

Level of Evidence IV

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these evidence-based medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. McCarthy CM et al (2012) The magnitude of effect of cosmetic breast augmentation on patient satisfaction and health-related quality of life. Plast Reconstr Surg 130(1):218–223

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Von Sperlingl ML, Høimyrl H, Finnerupl K, Jensenl TS, Finnerupl NB (2011) Persistent pain and sensory changes following cosmetic breast augmentation. Eur J Pain 15(3):328–332

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Buenaventura R, Adlaka R, Sehgal N (2008) Opioid complications and side effects. Pain Phys 11:105–120

    Google Scholar 

  4. Stanley SS, Hoppe IC, Ciminello FS (2012) Pain control following breast augmentation: a qualitative systematic review. Aesthet Surg J 32(8):964–972

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Blanco R (2011) The ‘pecs block’: a novel technique for providing analgesia after breast surgery. Anaesthesia 66(9):847–848

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Kang CM, Kim WJ, Yoon SH, Cho CB, Shim JS (2007) Postoperative pain control by intercostal nerve block after augmentation mammoplasty. Aesthet Plast Surg 41(5):1031–1036

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Fayman M, Beeton A, Potgieter E, Becker PJ (2003) Comparative analysis of bupivacaine and ropivacaine for infiltration analgesia for bilateral breast surgery. Aesthet Plast Surg 27(2):100–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Tan P et al (2017) A comparison of 4 analgesic regimens for acute postoperative pain control in breast augmentation patients. Ann Plast Surg 78(6S):299–304

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Gardiner S, Rudkin G, Cooter R, Field J, Bond M (2012) Paravertebral blockade for day-case breast augmentation: a randomized clinical trial. Anesth Analg 115(5):1053–1059

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Wahba SS, Kamal SM (2014) Thoracic paravertebral block versus pectoral nerve block for analgesia after breast surgery. Egypt J Anaesth 30(2):129–135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Kulhari S, Bharti N, Bala I, Arora S, Singh G (2016) Efficacy of pectoral nerve block versus thoracic paravertebral block for postoperative analgesia after radical mastectomy: a randomized controlled trial. BJA Br J Anaesth 117(3):382–386

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Bashandy GMN, Abbas DN (2015) Pectoral nerves I and II blocks in multimodal analgesia for breast cancer surgery: a randomized clinical trial. Reg Anesth Pain Med 40(1):68–74

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Morioka H, Kamiya Y, Yoshida T, Baba H (2015) Pectoral nerve block combined with general anesthesia for breast cancer surgery: a retrospective comparison. JA Clin Rep 1(1):15

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Karaca O, Pınar HU, Arpacı E, Dogan R, Cok OY, Ahiskalioglu A (2018) The efficacy of ultrasound-guided type-I and type-II pectoral nerve blocks for postoperative analgesia after breast augmentation: a prospective, randomised study. Anaesth Crit Care Pain Med 38:47–52

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Benyamin R, Trescot AM, Datta S et al (2008) Opioid complications and side effects. Pain Phys 11(2 Suppl l):S105

    Google Scholar 

  16. Gago Martinez A, Escontrela Rodriguez B, Planas Roca A et al (2016) Intravenous ibuprofen for treatment of post-operative pain: a multicenter, double blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial. PLoS ONE 11:e0154004

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Moore DC (1998) Intercostal nerve block. Int Anesthesiol Clin 36(4):29–42

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Giebler RM, Scherer RU, Peters J (1997) Incidence of neurologic complications related to thoracic epidural catheterization. Anesthesiol J Am Soc Anesthesiol 86(1):55–63

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Stone MB, Carnell J, Fischer JW, Herring AA, Nagdev A (2011) Ultrasound-guided intercostal nerve block for traumatic pneumothorax requiring tube thoracostomy. Am J Emerg Med 29:697

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Hardy PAJ (1988) Anatomical variation in the position of the proximal intercostal nerve. BJA Br J Anaesth 61(3):338–339

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Nasr M, Jabbour H, Habre SB (2017) Intercostal nerve block versus bupivacaine pectoralis major infiltration in subpectoral breast augmentation: a randomized controlled trial. Leban Med J 103(4152):1–5

    Google Scholar 

  22. Butterworth JF, Mackey DC, Wasnick JD (2013) Morgan and Mikhail’s clinical anesthesiology, vol 272, 5th edn. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  23. Freysz M, Beal JL, Timour Q, Bertrix L, Faucon G (1988) Systemic toxicity of local anesthetics. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic factors. In: Annales francaises d’anesthesie et de reanimation, vol 7, no 3, pp 181–188

  24. Cros J et al (2018) Pectoral I block does not improve postoperative analgesia after breast cancer surgery: a randomized, double-blind, dual-centered controlled trial. Reg Anesth Pain Med 43(6):596–604

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Author notes

  1. Mursel Ekinci

    Present address: Department of Anesthesiology and Reanimation, Istanbul Medipol University, 34000, Bagcilar, Istanbul, Turkey

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Anesthesiology and Reanimation, Istanbul Medipol University, 34000, Bagcilar, Istanbul, Turkey

    Bahadir Ciftci, Muhammet Ahmet Karakaya & Yavuz Demiraran

  2. Department of Anesthesiology and Reanimation, Erzurum Regional Training and Research Hospital, 25070, Yakutiye, Erzurum, Turkey

    Erkan Cem Celik

Authors
  1. Mursel Ekinci
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bahadir Ciftci
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Erkan Cem Celik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Muhammet Ahmet Karakaya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Yavuz Demiraran
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bahadir Ciftci.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors report no conflicts of interest.

Ethical Approval

The study received approval from the local ethics committee.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all patients.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ekinci, M., Ciftci, B., Celik, E.C. et al. The Efficacy of Different Volumes on Ultrasound-Guided Type-I Pectoral Nerve Block for Postoperative Analgesia After Subpectoral Breast Augmentation: A Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Study. Aesth Plast Surg 43, 297–304 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-019-01322-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-019-01322-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation