Search Search PubMed | Search PubMed

PubMed2026

Impact on analgesia, diaphragmatic function, and recovery between erector spinae plane block versus superior trunk block in arthroscopic shoulder surgery: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Effective analgesia and preservation of diaphragmatic function are key considerations in analgesia for shoulder surgery. The superior trunk block provides analgesia with reduced phrenic nerve involvement, while the erector spinae plane block offers minimal impact on diaphragm motion. This randomized controlled trial compared the analgesic efficacy, impact on diaphragmatic motion, and postoperative recovery between the two blocks. METHODS: Sixty patients undergoing arthroscopic shoulder surgery were randomized to receive either erector spinae plane block or superior trunk block. Primary outcomes were postoperative VAS and changes in diaphragmatic excursion. Secondary outcomes included Quality of Recovery-15 (QoR-15) scores, morphine-equivalent consumption, and the handgrip strength motor blockade. RESULTS: The superior trunk block resulted in significantly lower dynamic VAS at 1-h postoperatively (0.1 [0.0, 0.2] vs. 5.7 [4.0, 7.6]; p < 0.001) and reduced 24-h morphine consumption (7.8 [2.5, 15.0] mg vs. 12.7 [7.5, 17.3] mg; p = 0.038) compared to the erector spinae plane block. However, diaphragmatic excursion was better preserved in the erector spinae plane block group (8.37% ± 20.7% vs. -20.09% ± 22.2%; p < 0.001), with a lower incidence of partial hemidiaphragm paresis (3.3% vs. 46.7%; p < 0.001). At 24 h postoperatively, QoR-15 scores were higher in the superior trunk block group (p = 0.047), and no patient in either group developed handgrip motor blockade. CONCLUSIONS: Superior trunk block offers superior early postoperative analgesia and better overall recovery, while erector spinae plane block minimizes diaphragmatic impairment. However, the erector spinae plane block may represent an option only in carefully selected patients at high respiratory risk, acknowledging its significantly poorer early analgesic profile.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Do wound protectors reduce contamination in total shoulder arthroplasty? A randomized controlled trial.

HYPOTHESIS: Cutibacterium acnes is the most frequent cause of shoulder prosthetic joint infection with skin edges as a source of wound contamination. The primary purpose of this study was to determine if the use of a wound protector device decreases the deep wound bacterial colonization in primary shoulder arthroplasty. The secondary purpose was to assess the effect of device usage on deltopectoral muscle and cephalic vein injury. METHODS: This was a prospective, randomized controlled trial. A total of 100 patients undergoing primary total shoulder arthroplasty were enrolled and randomized into 2 groups: a wound protector group and a control group. Five patients withdrew from the study, leaving 48 patients in the wound protector group and 47 controls. Three deep wound culture swabs were taken after final arthroplasty implantation. The surgeon also graded deltoid, pectoralis major, and cephalic vein injury on a 0-3 scale based on modification to the Tscherne classification of soft tissue injury. The primary outcome of this study was positive culture results for C acnes. Secondary outcomes included total bacterial culture positivity as well as soft tissue injury grades. A subanalysis removing likely contaminant positive cultures (growth >7 days and 1 colony only) was also performed. Comparisons between groups were made using Fisher exact test for categorical outcomes and t tests and Mann-Whitney U tests for continuous variables. RESULTS: The use of a wound protector did not result in any significant differences compared with controls in the rate of positive cultures for C acnes (15% vs. 21%, P = .593) or all bacteria (15% vs. 26%, P = .304). Removing likely contaminant positive cultures did not demonstrate any significant difference in culture positivity (9% vs. 17%, P = .355, for C acnes; 9% vs. 19%, P = .231, for all bacterial species). The wound protector group had better soft tissue injury scores for the deltoid muscle (P < .001) and pectoralis muscle (P < .001). No difference in cephalic vein injury was noted between the 2 groups (P > .05). No difference in surgical time was noted. CONCLUSION: The use of a surgical wound protector device in total shoulder arthroplasty did not significantly decrease bacterial colonization of the deep wound. However, soft tissue damage to the deltoid and pectoralis muscle was less severe in the wound protector group. These findings suggest that this device reduces iatrogenic soft tissue injury.

Humans↗