The Postoperative Analgesic Effect of Lumbar Erector Spinae Plane Block versus Pericapsular Nerve Group Block in Patients Undergoing Hip Surgeries

Authors

• Islam M. El-Desoky, Department of Anesthesiology, Intensive Care and Pain Management, Faculty of Medicine, Menoufia University, 32511 Shebin El-Kom, Menoufia, EgyptFollow
• Mohamed Elshafey, Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Management, Prince Mohammed Bin Abdulaziz Hospital, 14214 Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
• Amal Ismail Abdelrahman, Department of Anesthesiology, Intensive Care and Pain Management, Faculty of Medicine, Menoufia University, 32511 Shebin El-Kom, Menoufia, Egypt

Abstract

Background: Hip surgery requires effective pain control for proper recovery and decreasing the length of hospital stay. Aims: We aimed to assess the analgesic effect of Erector spinae plane block (ESPB) and pericapsular nerve group (PENG) blocks in pain control after hip operations. Methods: This randomized clinical trial included 69 ASA I–II patients scheduled for hip surgery were randomly allocated into three groups: PENG block, ESPB, and control groups (23 each). The primary outcome was postoperative pain assessed via the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) at rest and during movement. Secondary outcomes included intraoperative and 48-hour morphine consumption, time to first rescue analgesia, duration of analgesia, time to first ambulation, and quadriceps muscle strength. Results: Resting and dynamic NRS were significantly lower in ESPB and PENG groups than control (P

Article Type

Original Study

Subject Area

Anesthesia, Surgical Intensive Care and Pain Treatment

IRB Number

2/2023 ANET 15-2

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License.

Recommended Citation

El-Desoky, Islam M.; Elshafey, Mohamed; and Abdelrahman, Amal Ismail (2026) "The Postoperative Analgesic Effect of Lumbar Erector Spinae Plane Block versus Pericapsular Nerve Group Block in Patients Undergoing Hip Surgeries," Journal of Medicine in Scientific Research: Vol. 9: Iss. 3, Article 11.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.59299/2537-0928.1530