Comparison of erector spinae plane block and paravertebral block for postoperative recovery after posterior spinal fusion for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a retrospective cohort study
This retrospective cohort study demonstrates that, compared to paravertebral blocks, erector spinae plane blocks significantly reduce postoperative opioid consumption, pain scores, and nausea while accelerating ambulation in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis patients undergoing posterior spinal fusion, suggesting ESPB as a viable alternative for multimodal analgesia.
Original paper licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This is an AI-generated explanation of the paper below. It is not written or endorsed by the authors. For technical accuracy, refer to the original paper. Read full disclaimer
For teenagers with severe curvature of the spine, the standard solution is a major surgery called posterior spinal fusion. Doctors straighten the backbone and fuse the bones together using metal rods and screws. While this procedure corrects the deformity, it leaves the patient with intense pain afterward. Managing this pain is critical; if it is not controlled well, the patient cannot move around, which slows down healing and increases the risk of long-term pain problems. To help, anesthesiologists use regional blocks, which are injections of local medicine to numb specific nerves before the surgery begins. Two common techniques are the paravertebral block, which targets nerves near the spine but carries a risk of puncturing the lung, and the erector spinae plane block, a newer method that injects medicine into a muscle layer further away from the spine, theoretically making it safer. The medical community has long debated which of these two approaches offers the best balance of pain relief and safety for these young patients.
A team of researchers at Beijing Jishuitan Hospital Guizhou Hospital set out to compare these two methods directly. They looked back at the medical records of 156 adolescents who underwent this spinal fusion surgery between 2020 and 2025. The patients were divided into two groups based on which block they received: 82 received the erector spinae plane block, and 74 received the paravertebral block. To ensure a fair comparison, the researchers used a statistical method to match patients with similar characteristics, such as age, weight, and the number of vertebrae fused, resulting in two groups of 58 patients each for the final analysis.
The results showed a clear difference in how the patients recovered. Those who received the erector spinae plane block needed significantly less pain medication in the first 24 hours after surgery. On average, they consumed about 18.3 milligrams of morphine-equivalent medication, whereas the group with the paravertebral block consumed roughly 36.5 milligrams. This represented a reduction of nearly half in the amount of opioids required. The patients with the newer block also reported lower pain scores when resting and moving at six and twelve hours after the operation. They waited much longer before asking for their first dose of pain medicine, with an average wait of 7.2 hours compared to just 1.6 hours for the other group.
Beyond pain relief, the recovery process was smoother for the erector spinae plane group. They experienced far fewer episodes of nausea and vomiting, with only 5.2 percent of these patients affected compared to 31 percent in the paravertebral group. This group also began walking again sooner, on average 46.8 hours after surgery, compared to 51.2 hours for the other group. In terms of safety, the erector spinae plane block proved to be very secure, with no complications related to the block itself. In contrast, one patient in the paravertebral group developed a mild collapsed lung, a known risk of that specific technique, which resolved with conservative care.
The researchers suggest that the erector spinae plane block may be a better option for these surgeries because it covers a wider area of the back and stays effective for longer, likely due to how the medicine spreads through the muscle layer. However, the authors are careful to note that this study was retrospective, meaning it looked at past data rather than a new, controlled experiment. They state that while the findings are promising and suggest the newer block is a viable alternative, these results should be confirmed by larger, prospective trials before changing standard medical practice. For now, the study provides strong evidence that a simpler, safer injection technique can significantly reduce pain and opioid use for teenagers recovering from spinal fusion.
Drowning in papers in your field?
Get daily digests of the most novel papers matching your research keywords — with technical summaries, in your language.