-
Anaesthesia, Critical Care & Pain... Aug 2021The aim of this review was to update the recommendations for optimal pain management after open and laparoscopic or robotic prostatectomy. Optimal pain management is... (Review)
Review
The aim of this review was to update the recommendations for optimal pain management after open and laparoscopic or robotic prostatectomy. Optimal pain management is known to influence postoperative recovery, but patients undergoing open radical prostatectomy typically experience moderate dynamic pain in the immediate postoperative day. Robot-assisted and laparoscopic surgery may be associated with decreased pain levels as opposed to open surgery. We performed a systematic review using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) with PROcedure SPECific Postoperative Pain ManagemenT (PROSPECT) methodology. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in English language, from January 2015 until March 2020, assessing postoperative pain, using analgesic, anaesthetic and surgical interventions, were identified from MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Databases. Of the 1797 studies identified, 35 RCTs and 3 meta-analyses met our inclusion criteria. NSAIDs and COX-2 selective inhibitors proved to lower postoperative pain scores. Continuous intravenous lidocaine reduced postoperative pain scores during open surgery. Local wound infiltration showed positive results in open surgery. Bilateral transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block was performed at the end of surgery and lowered pain scores in robot-assisted procedures, but results were conflicting for open procedures. Basic analgesia for prostatic surgery should include paracetamol and NSAIDs or COX-2 selective inhibitors. TAP block should be recommended as the first-choice regional analgesic technique for laparoscopic/robotic radical prostatectomy. Intravenous lidocaine should be considered for open surgeries.
Topics: Abdominal Muscles; Humans; Male; Neoplasms; Nerve Block; Pain Management; Pain, Postoperative; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Prostatectomy
PubMed: 34197976
DOI: 10.1016/j.accpm.2021.100922 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2020Endometriosis is associated with pain and infertility. Surgical interventions aim to remove visible areas of endometriosis and restore the anatomy. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Endometriosis is associated with pain and infertility. Surgical interventions aim to remove visible areas of endometriosis and restore the anatomy.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of laparoscopic surgery in the treatment of pain and infertility associated with endometriosis.
SEARCH METHODS
This review has drawn on the search strategy developed by the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group including searching the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group's specialised register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, reference lists for relevant trials, and trial registries from inception to April 2020.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the effectiveness and safety of laparoscopic surgery with any other laparoscopic or robotic intervention, holistic or medical treatment, or diagnostic laparoscopy only.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently performed selection of studies, assessment of trial quality and extraction of relevant data with disagreements resolved by a third review author. We collected data for the core outcome set for endometriosis. Primary outcomes included overall pain and live birth. We evaluated the quality of evidence using GRADE methods.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 14 RCTs. The studies randomised 1563 women with endometriosis. Four RCTs compared laparoscopic ablation or excision with diagnostic laparoscopy only. Two RCTs compared laparoscopic excision with diagnostic laparoscopy only. One RCT compared laparoscopic ablation or excision with laparoscopic ablation or excision and uterine suspension. Two RCTs compared laparoscopic ablation and uterine nerve transection with diagnostic laparoscopy only. One RCT compared laparoscopic ablation with diagnostic laparoscopy and gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues. Two RCTs compared laparoscopic ablation with laparoscopic excision. One RCT compared laparoscopic ablation or excision with helium thermal coagulator with laparoscopic ablation or excision with electrodiathermy. One RCT compared conservative laparoscopic surgery with laparoscopic colorectal resection of deep endometriosis infiltrating the rectum. Common limitations in the primary studies included lack of clearly described blinding, failure to fully describe methods of randomisation and allocation concealment, and poor reporting of outcome data. Laparoscopic treatment versus diagnostic laparoscopy We are uncertain of the effect of laparoscopic treatment on overall pain scores compared to diagnostic laparoscopy only at six months (mean difference (MD) 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.31 to 1.49; 1 RCT, 16 participants; very low quality evidence) and at 12 months (MD 1.65, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.19; 1 RCT, 16 participants; very low quality evidence), where a positive value means pain relief (the higher the score, the more pain relief) and a negative value reflects pain increase (the lower the score, the worse the increase in pain). No studies looked at live birth. We are uncertain of the effect of laparoscopic treatment on quality of life compared to diagnostic laparoscopy only: EuroQol-5D index summary at six months (MD 0.03, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.18; 1 RCT, 39 participants; low quality evidence), 12-item Short Form (SF-12) mental health component (MD 2.30, 95% CI -4.50 to 9.10; 1 RCT, 39 participants; low quality evidence) and SF-12 physical health component (MD 2.70, 95% CI -2.90 to 8.30; 1 RCT, 39 participants; low quality evidence). Laparoscopic treatment probably improves viable intrauterine pregnancy rate compared to diagnostic laparoscopy only (odds ratio (OR) 1.89, 95% CI 1.25 to 2.86; 3 RCTs, 528 participants; I = 0%; moderate quality evidence). We are uncertain of the effect of laparoscopic treatment compared to diagnostic laparoscopy only on ectopic pregnancy (MD 1.18, 95% CI 0.10 to 13.48; 1 RCT, 100 participants; low quality evidence) and miscarriage (MD 0.94, 95% CI 0.35 to 2.54; 2 RCTs, 112 participants; low quality evidence). There was limited reporting of adverse events. No conversions to laparotomy were reported in both groups (1 RCT, 341 participants). Laparoscopic ablation and uterine nerve transection versus diagnostic laparoscopy We are uncertain of the effect of laparoscopic ablation and uterine nerve transection on adverse events (more specifically vascular injury) compared to diagnostic laparoscopy only (OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.32; 1 RCT, 141 participants; low quality evidence). No studies looked at overall pain scores (at six and 12 months), live birth, quality of life, viable intrauterine pregnancy confirmed by ultrasound, ectopic pregnancy and miscarriage. Laparoscopic ablation versus laparoscopic excision There was insufficient evidence to determine whether there was a difference in overall pain, measured at 12 months, for laparoscopic ablation compared with laparoscopic excision (MD 0.00, 95% CI -1.22 to 1.22; 1 RCT, 103 participants; very low quality evidence). No studies looked at overall pain scores at six months, live birth, quality of life, viable intrauterine pregnancy confirmed by ultrasound, ectopic pregnancy, miscarriage and adverse events. Helium thermal coagulator versus electrodiathermy We are uncertain whether helium thermal coagulator compared to electrodiathermy improves quality of life using the 30-item Endometriosis Health Profile (EHP-30) at nine months, when considering the components: pain (MD 6.68, 95% CI -3.07 to 16.43; 1 RCT, 119 participants; very low quality evidence), control and powerlessness (MD 4.79, 95% CI -6.92 to 16.50; 1 RCT, 119 participants; very low quality evidence), emotional well-being (MD 6.17, 95% CI -3.95 to 16.29; 1 RCT, 119 participants; very low quality evidence) and social support (MD 5.62, 95% CI -6.21 to 17.45; 1 RCT, 119 participants; very low quality evidence). Adverse events were not estimable. No studies looked at overall pain scores (at six and 12 months), live birth, viable intrauterine pregnancy confirmed by ultrasound, ectopic pregnancy and miscarriage.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Compared to diagnostic laparoscopy only, it is uncertain whether laparoscopic surgery reduces overall pain associated with minimal to severe endometriosis. No data were reported on live birth. There is moderate quality evidence that laparoscopic surgery increases viable intrauterine pregnancy rates confirmed by ultrasound compared to diagnostic laparoscopy only. No studies were found that looked at live birth for any of the comparisons. Further research is needed considering the management of different subtypes of endometriosis and comparing laparoscopic interventions with lifestyle and medical interventions. There was insufficient evidence on adverse events to allow any conclusions to be drawn regarding safety.
Topics: Antineoplastic Agents, Hormonal; Denervation; Electrocoagulation; Endometriosis; Female; Goserelin; Helium; Humans; Infertility, Female; Laparoscopy; Pelvic Pain; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Rate; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Uterus
PubMed: 33095458
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011031.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2016Operations on structures in the chest (usually the lungs) involve cutting between the ribs (thoracotomy). Severe post-thoracotomy pain can result from pleural (lung... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Operations on structures in the chest (usually the lungs) involve cutting between the ribs (thoracotomy). Severe post-thoracotomy pain can result from pleural (lung lining) and muscular damage, costovertebral joint (ribcage) disruption and intercostal nerve (nerves that run along the ribs) damage during surgery. Poor pain relief after surgery can impede recovery and increase the risks of developing complications such as lung collapse, chest infections and blood clots due to ineffective breathing and clearing of secretions. Effective management of acute pain following thoracotomy may prevent these complications and reduce the likelihood of developing chronic pain. A multi-modal approach to analgesia is widely employed by thoracic anaesthetists using a combination of regional anaesthetic blockade and systemic analgesia, with both non-opioid and opioid medications and local anaesthesia blockade.There is some evidence that blocking the nerves as they emerge from the spinal column (paravertebral block, PVB) may be associated with a lower risk of major complications in thoracic surgery but the majority of thoracic anaesthetists still prefer to use a thoracic epidural blockade (TEB) as analgesia for their patients undergoing thoracotomy. In order to bring about a change in practice, anaesthetists need a review that evaluates the risk of all major complications associated with thoracic epidural and paravertebral block in thoracotomy.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the two regional techniques of TEB and PVB in adults undergoing elective thoracotomy with respect to:1. analgesic efficacy;2. the incidence of major complications (including mortality);3. the incidence of minor complications;4. length of hospital stay;5. cost effectiveness.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched for studies in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2013, Issue 9); MEDLINE via Ovid (1966 to 16 October 2013); EMBASE via Ovid (1980 to 16 October 2013); CINAHL via EBSCO host (1982 to 16 October 2013); and reference lists of retrieved studies. We handsearched the Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery and Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia (16 October 2013). We reran the search on 31st January 2015. We found one additional study which is awaiting classification and will be addressed when we update the review.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing PVB with TEB in thoracotomy, including upper gastrointestinal surgery.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors (JY and SG) independently assessed the studies for inclusion and then extracted data as eligible for inclusion in qualitative and quantitative synthesis (meta-analysis).
MAIN RESULTS
We included 14 studies with a total of 698 participants undergoing thoracotomy. There are two studies awaiting classification. The studies demonstrated high heterogeneity in insertion and use of both regional techniques, reflecting real-world differences in the anaesthesia techniques. Overall, the included studies have a moderate to high potential for bias, lacking details of randomization, group allocation concealment or arrangements to blind participants or outcome assessors. There was low to very low-quality evidence that showed no significant difference in 30-day mortality (2 studies, 125 participants. risk ratio (RR) 1.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.39 to 4.23, P value = 0.68) and major complications (cardiovascular: 2 studies, 114 participants. Hypotension RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.01 to 6.62, P value = 0.45; arrhythmias RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.04 to 3.29, P value = 0.36, myocardial infarction RR 3.19, 95% CI 0.13, 76.42, P value = 0.47); respiratory: 5 studies, 280 participants. RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.52, P value = 0.30). There was moderate-quality evidence that showed comparable analgesic efficacy across all time points both at rest and after coughing or physiotherapy (14 studies, 698 participants). There was moderate-quality evidence that showed PVB had a better minor complication profile than TEB including hypotension (8 studies, 445 participants. RR 0.16, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.38, P value < 0.0001), nausea and vomiting (6 studies, 345 participants. RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.75, P value = 0.001), pruritis (5 studies, 249 participants. RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.59, P value = 0.0005) and urinary retention (5 studies, 258 participants. RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.46, P value < 0.0001). There was insufficient data in chronic pain (six or 12 months). There was no difference found in and length of hospital stay (3 studies, 124 participants). We found no studies that reported costs.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Paravertebral blockade reduced the risks of developing minor complications compared to thoracic epidural blockade. Paravertebral blockade was as effective as thoracic epidural blockade in controlling acute pain. There was a lack of evidence in other outcomes. There was no difference in 30-day mortality, major complications, or length of hospital stay. There was insufficient data on chronic pain and costs. Results from this review should be interpreted with caution due to the heterogeneity of the included studies and the lack of reliable evidence. Future studies in this area need well-conducted, adequately-powered RCTs that focus not only on acute pain but also on major complications, chronic pain, length of stay and costs.
Topics: Acute Pain; Anesthesia, Epidural; Delirium; Humans; Hypotension; Length of Stay; Lung Diseases; Nerve Block; Pain, Postoperative; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Thoracotomy
PubMed: 26897642
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009121.pub2 -
Journal of Clinical Anesthesia Jun 2022Erector spinae plane block (ESPB) has gained popularity for perioperative analgesia in various surgeries. However, its efficacy in lumbar surgery remains unclear. This... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
STUDY OBJECTIVE
Erector spinae plane block (ESPB) has gained popularity for perioperative analgesia in various surgeries. However, its efficacy in lumbar surgery remains unclear. This review aimed to determine whether ESPB could improve analgesic efficacy in lumbar spine surgery.
DESIGN
A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
SETTING
Perioperative setting.
PATIENTS
Patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery under general anesthesia.
INTERVENTIONS
We searched the databases including PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Web of Science etc. for published eligible controlled trials comparing ESPB with control (no block/sham block) in lumbar spine surgery.
MEASUREMENTS
The primary outcome was opioid consumption in the first 24 h after surgery.
MAIN RESULTS
Twelve studies comprising 665 participants were included. Compared to the control, ESPB reduced the opioid (morphine milligram equivalents) consumption significantly 24 h after surgery [mean difference (MD) = -14.55; 95% confidence interval (CI), -21.03 to -8.07; P < 0.0001] and lowered the pain scores at various time points (at rest or during movement) for 48 h after surgery. ESPB increased the patient satisfaction score (0-10) (MD = 2.38; 95% CI, 2.10 to 2.66; P < 0.0001), decreased the postoperative nausea and vomiting [risk ratio (RR) = 0.36; 95% CI, 0.20 to 0.67; P = 0.001], and minimized the length of hospital stay (MD = -1.24 days; 95% CI, -2.31 to -0.18; P = 0.02). Furthermore, subgroup analysis revealed additional reduction in opioid consumption by the block approach at the vertebral level of incision/operation than that at the fixed thoracic/lumbar level. However, considerable heterogeneity and low-grade quality of evidence were observed.
CONCLUSIONS
ESPB provided effective postoperative analgesia resulting in better patient satisfaction and recovery with decreased postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing lumbar surgery compared to the control. However, the low-grade quality of evidence compromised the findings, therefore further high-quality of evidence is required. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021233362.
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Humans; Nerve Block; Pain, Postoperative; Paraspinal Muscles; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting
PubMed: 35030493
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2022.110647 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2017Peripheral nerve block (infiltration of local anaesthetic around a nerve) is used for anaesthesia or analgesia. A limitation to its use for postoperative analgesia is... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Peripheral nerve block (infiltration of local anaesthetic around a nerve) is used for anaesthesia or analgesia. A limitation to its use for postoperative analgesia is that the analgesic effect lasts only a few hours, after which moderate to severe pain at the surgical site may result in the need for alternative analgesic therapy. Several adjuvants have been used to prolong the analgesic duration of peripheral nerve block, including perineural or intravenous dexamethasone.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of perineural dexamethasone versus placebo, intravenous dexamethasone versus placebo, and perineural dexamethasone versus intravenous dexamethasone when added to peripheral nerve block for postoperative pain control in people undergoing surgery.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, DARE, Web of Science and Scopus from inception to 25 April 2017. We also searched trial registry databases, Google Scholar and meeting abstracts from the American Society of Anesthesiologists, the Canadian Anesthesiologists' Society, the American Society of Regional Anesthesia, and the European Society of Regional Anaesthesia.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing perineural dexamethasone with placebo, intravenous dexamethasone with placebo, or perineural dexamethasone with intravenous dexamethasone in participants receiving peripheral nerve block for upper or lower limb surgery.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 35 trials of 2702 participants aged 15 to 78 years; 33 studies enrolled participants undergoing upper limb surgery and two undergoing lower limb surgery. Risk of bias was low in 13 studies and high/unclear in 22. Perineural dexamethasone versus placeboDuration of sensory block was significantly longer in the perineural dexamethasone group compared with placebo (mean difference (MD) 6.70 hours, 95% confidence interval (CI) 5.54 to 7.85; participants1625; studies 27). Postoperative pain intensity at 12 and 24 hours was significantly lower in the perineural dexamethasone group compared with control (MD -2.08, 95% CI -2.63 to -1.53; participants 257; studies 5) and (MD -1.63, 95% CI -2.34 to -0.93; participants 469; studies 9), respectively. There was no significant difference at 48 hours (MD -0.61, 95% CI -1.24 to 0.03; participants 296; studies 4). The quality of evidence is very low for postoperative pain intensity at 12 hours and low for the remaining outcomes. Cumulative 24-hour postoperative opioid consumption was significantly lower in the perineural dexamethasone group compared with placebo (MD 19.25 mg, 95% CI 5.99 to 32.51; participants 380; studies 6). Intravenous dexamethasone versus placeboDuration of sensory block was significantly longer in the intravenous dexamethasone group compared with placebo (MD 6.21, 95% CI 3.53 to 8.88; participants 499; studies 8). Postoperative pain intensity at 12 and 24 hours was significantly lower in the intravenous dexamethasone group compared with placebo (MD -1.24, 95% CI -2.44 to -0.04; participants 162; studies 3) and (MD -1.26, 95% CI -2.23 to -0.29; participants 257; studies 5), respectively. There was no significant difference at 48 hours (MD -0.21, 95% CI -0.83 to 0.41; participants 172; studies 3). The quality of evidence is moderate for duration of sensory block and postoperative pain intensity at 24 hours, and low for the remaining outcomes. Cumulative 24-hour postoperative opioid consumption was significantly lower in the intravenous dexamethasone group compared with placebo (MD -6.58 mg, 95% CI -10.56 to -2.60; participants 287; studies 5). Perinerual versus intravenous dexamethasoneDuration of sensory block was significantly longer in the perineural dexamethasone group compared with intravenous by three hours (MD 3.14 hours, 95% CI 1.68 to 4.59; participants 720; studies 9). We found that postoperative pain intensity at 12 hours and 24 hours was significantly lower in the perineural dexamethasone group compared with intravenous, however, the MD did not surpass our pre-determined minimally important difference of 1.2 on the Visual Analgue Scale/Numerical Rating Scale, therefore the results are not clinically significant (MD -1.01, 95% CI -1.51 to -0.50; participants 217; studies 3) and (MD -0.77, 95% CI -1.47 to -0.08; participants 309; studies 5), respectively. There was no significant difference in severity of postoperative pain at 48 hours (MD 0.13, 95% CI -0.35 to 0.61; participants 227; studies 3). The quality of evidence is moderate for duration of sensory block and postoperative pain intensity at 24 hours, and low for the remaining outcomes. There was no difference in cumulative postoperative 24-hour opioid consumption (MD -3.87 mg, 95% CI -9.93 to 2.19; participants 242; studies 4). Incidence of severe adverse eventsFive serious adverse events were reported. One block-related event (pneumothorax) occurred in one participant in a trial comparing perineural dexamethasone and placebo; however group allocation was not reported. Four non-block-related events occurred in two trials comparing perineural dexamethasone, intravenous dexamethasone and placebo. Two participants in the placebo group required hospitalization within one week of surgery; one for a fall and one for a bowel infection. One participant in the placebo group developed Complex Regional Pain Syndrome Type I and one in the intravenous dexamethasone group developed pneumonia. The quality of evidence is very low due to the sparse number of events.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Low- to moderate-quality evidence suggests that when used as an adjuvant to peripheral nerve block in upper limb surgery, both perineural and intravenous dexamethasone may prolong duration of sensory block and are effective in reducing postoperative pain intensity and opioid consumption. There is not enough evidence to determine the effectiveness of dexamethasone as an adjuvant to peripheral nerve block in lower limb surgeries and there is no evidence in children. The results of our review may not apply to participants at risk of dexamethasone-related adverse events for whom clinical trials would probably be unsafe.There is not enough evidence to determine the effectiveness of dexamethasone as an adjuvant to peripheral nerve block in lower limb surgeries and there is no evidence in children. The results of our review may not be apply to participants who at risk of dexamethasone-related adverse events for whom clinical trials would probably be unsafe. The nine ongoing trials registered at ClinicalTrials.gov may change the results of this review.
Topics: Anesthetics, Local; Arm; Dexamethasone; Glucocorticoids; Humans; Injections, Intravenous; Leg; Nerve Block; Neuromuscular Blocking Agents; Pain, Postoperative; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors
PubMed: 29121400
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011770.pub2 -
Minerva Anestesiologica Mar 2019The erector spinae plane (ESP) block is an interfascial block proposed to provide analgesia for chronic thoracic pain. It consists in an injection of local anesthetic in...
INTRODUCTION
The erector spinae plane (ESP) block is an interfascial block proposed to provide analgesia for chronic thoracic pain. It consists in an injection of local anesthetic in a plane between the transverse process and the erector spinae muscles group.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
We performed a systematic review of literature following the PRISMA Statement Guidelines. The bibliographic search was conducted on September 2018. We included articles indexed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Google Scholar. Search terms included the following: "erector spinae plane block" OR "ESP block" OR "erector spinae block." We identified 367 studies and after removal of 206 duplicates and exclusion of 18 records we manually searched 140 studies.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
We identified four randomized controlled trials, but the endpoints were heterogeneous preventing a statistical analysis; we performed then a qualitative review of the literature. Studies showed lower use of opioids and a longer time to first analgesic requirement in the ESP group. In one study, ESP block was found to be as effective as epidural analgesia. ESP block has a wide range of clinical indications. Its mechanism of action is still not thoroughly understood. Only two reports presented complications caused by the block.
CONCLUSIONS
Although data suggests that ESP block is an easy and safe technique, more studies are needed to assess safety, complications rates and efficacy of this technique. In particular, we need well designed RCTs comparing ESP block to gold standard regional anesthesia technique. Nevertheless, ESP block is already a viable option for anesthesiologists all over the world.
Topics: Anesthetics, Local; Humans; Nerve Block; Paraspinal Muscles
PubMed: 30621377
DOI: 10.23736/S0375-9393.18.13341-4 -
JAMA Network Open Nov 2021The use of intercostal nerve block (ICNB) analgesia with local anesthesia is common in thoracic surgery. However, the benefits and safety of ICNB among adult patients... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
The use of intercostal nerve block (ICNB) analgesia with local anesthesia is common in thoracic surgery. However, the benefits and safety of ICNB among adult patients undergoing surgery is unknown.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the analgesic benefits and safety of ICNB among adults undergoing thoracic surgery.
DATA SOURCES
A systematic search was performed in Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library databases using terms for ICNB and thoracic surgery (including thoracic surgery, thoracoscopy, thoracotomy, nerve block, intercostal nerves). The search and results were not limited by date, with the last search conducted on July 24, 2020.
STUDY SELECTION
Selected studies were experimental or observational and included adult patients undergoing cardiothoracic surgery in which ICNB was administered with local anesthesia via single injection, continuous infusion, or a combination of both techniques in at least 1 group of patients. For comparison with ICNB, studies that examined systemic analgesia and different forms of regional analgesia (such as thoracic epidural analgesia [TEA], paravertebral block [PVB], and other techniques) were included. These criteria were applied independently by 2 authors, and discrepancies were resolved by consensus. A total of 694 records were selected for screening.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
This study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline. Data including patient characteristics, type of surgery, intervention analgesia, comparison analgesia, and primary and secondary outcomes were extracted independently by 3 authors. Synthesis was performed using a fixed-effects model.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The coprimary outcomes were postoperative pain intensity (measured as the worst static or dynamic pain using a validated 10-point scale, with 0 indicating no pain and 10 indicating severe pain) and opioid consumption (measured in morphine milligram equivalents [MMEs]) at prespecified intervals (0-6 hours, 7-24 hours, 25-48 hours, 49-72 hours, and >72 hours). Clinically relevant analgesia was defined as a 1-point or greater difference in pain intensity score at any interval. Secondary outcomes included 30-day postoperative complications and pulmonary function.
RESULTS
Of 694 records screened, 608 were excluded based on prespecified exclusion criteria. The remaining 86 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility, and 20 of those articles were excluded. All of the 66 remaining studies (5184 patients; mean [SD] age, 53.9 [10.2] years; approximately 59% men and 41% women) were included in the qualitative analysis, and 59 studies (3325 patients) that provided data for at least 1 outcome were included in the quantitative meta-analysis. Experimental studies had a high risk of bias in multiple domains, including allocation concealment, blinding of participants and personnel, and blinding of outcome assessors. Marked differences (eg, crossover studies, timing of the intervention [intraoperative vs postoperative], blinding, and type of control group) were observed in the design and implementation of studies. The use of ICNB vs systemic analgesia was associated with lower static pain (0-6 hours after surgery: mean score difference, -1.40 points [95% CI, -1.46 to -1.33 points]; 7-24 hours after surgery: mean score difference, -1.27 points [95% CI, -1.40 to -1.13 points]) and lower dynamic pain (0-6 hours after surgery: mean score difference, -1.66 points [95% CI, -1.90 to -1.41 points]; 7-24 hours after surgery: mean score difference, -1.43 points [95% CI, -1.70 to -1.17 points]). Intercostal nerve block analgesia was noninferior to TEA (mean score difference in worst dynamic panic at 7-24 hours after surgery: 0.79 points; 95% CI, 0.28-1.29 points) and marginally inferior to PVB (mean score difference in worst dynamic pain at 7-24 hours after surgery: 1.29 points; 95% CI, 1.16 to 1.41 points). The largest opioid-sparing effect of ICNB vs systemic analgesia occurred at 48 hours after surgery (mean difference, -10.97 MMEs; 95% CI, -12.92 to -9.02 MMEs). The use of ICNB was associated with higher MME values compared with TEA (eg, 48 hours after surgery: mean difference, 48.31 MMEs; 95% CI, 36.11-60.52 MMEs) and PVB (eg, 48 hours after surgery: mean difference, 3.87 MMEs; 95% CI, 2.59-5.15 MMEs).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
In this study, single-injection ICNB was associated with a reduction in pain during the first 24 hours after thoracic surgery and was clinically noninferior to TEA or PVB. Intercostal nerve block analgesia had opioid-sparing effects; however, TEA and PVB were associated with larger decreases in postoperative MMEs, suggesting that ICNB may be most beneficial for cases in which TEA and PVB are not indicated.
Topics: Acute Pain; Analgesia, Epidural; Anesthesia, Epidural; Female; Humans; Intercostal Nerves; Male; Nerve Block; Pain, Postoperative; Thoracic Surgical Procedures
PubMed: 34779845
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.33394 -
Journal of Clinical Hypertension... Apr 2020Despite the availability of a numerous antihypertensive agents, hypertension treatment and control rates remain low in many countries. The role of the sympathetic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Efficacy and safety of renal denervation for the management of arterial hypertension: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, sham-controlled, catheter-based trials.
Despite the availability of a numerous antihypertensive agents, hypertension treatment and control rates remain low in many countries. The role of the sympathetic nervous system has long been recognized, but recent sham control renal denervation studies demonstrated conflicting results. In this reviewe paper, the authors performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine outcomes of sham-controlled studies utilizing new technologies and procedures. Six published randomized, sham-controlled studies were included in this meta-analysis. Of those, three trials used the first-generation radiofrequency renal denervation device and technique and the other three used second-generation devices and techniques. In total, 981 patients with hypertension were randomized in all 6 trials to undergo renal denervation (n = 585) or sham procedure (n = 396). Overall, renal denervation resulted in a decrease of 24-hours systolic ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) by 3.62 mm Hg (95% CI: -5.28--1.96; I = 0%), compared to sham procedure (GRADE: low). Renal denervation also reduced daytime systolic ABP by 5.51 mm Hg (95% CI: -7.79--3.23; I = 0%), compared to sham procedure but not nighttime systolic ABP. Office systolic blood pressure was reduced by 5.47 mm Hg (95% CI -8.10--2.84; I = 0%), compared to sham control. Further analysis demonstrated that second-generation devices were effective in reducing blood pressure, whereas the first-generation devices were not. These results indicate that effective renal denervation can result in significant and clinically meaningful blood pressure reduction. The second-generation devices provide better renal nerve ablation.
Topics: Antihypertensive Agents; Blood Pressure; Blood Pressure Monitoring, Ambulatory; Catheter Ablation; Catheters; Denervation; Humans; Hypertension; Kidney; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sympathectomy; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32049436
DOI: 10.1111/jch.13827 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2021Resistant hypertension is highly prevalent among the general hypertensive population and the clinical management of this condition remains problematic. Different... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Resistant hypertension is highly prevalent among the general hypertensive population and the clinical management of this condition remains problematic. Different approaches, including a more intensified antihypertensive therapy, lifestyle modifications or both, have largely failed to improve patients' outcomes and to reduce cardiovascular and renal risk. As renal sympathetic hyperactivity is a major driver of resistant hypertension, in the last decade renal sympathetic ablation (renal denervation) has been proposed as a possible therapeutic alternative to treat this condition.
OBJECTIVES
We sought to evaluate the short- and long-term effects of renal denervation in individuals with resistant hypertension on clinical end points, including fatal and non-fatal cardiovascular events, all-cause mortality, hospital admissions, quality of life, blood pressure control, left ventricular hypertrophy, cardiovascular and metabolic profile and kidney function, as well as the potential adverse events related to the procedure.
SEARCH METHODS
For this updated review, the Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomised controlled trials up to 3 November 2020: Cochrane Hypertension's Specialised Register, CENTRAL (2020, Issue 11), Ovid MEDLINE, and Ovid Embase. The World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (via CENTRAL) and the US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for ongoing trials. We also contacted authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work. The searches had no language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared renal denervation to standard therapy or sham procedure to treat resistant hypertension, without language restriction.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently extracted data and assessed study risk of bias. We summarised treatment effects on available clinical outcomes and adverse events using random-effects meta-analyses. We assessed heterogeneity in estimated treatment effects using Chi² and I² statistics. We calculated summary treatment estimates as a mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) for continuous outcomes, and a risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes, together with their 95% confidence intervals (CI). Certainty of evidence has been assessed using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We found 15 eligible studies (1416 participants). In four studies, renal denervation was compared to sham procedure; in the remaining studies, renal denervation was tested against standard or intensified antihypertensive therapy. Most studies had unclear or high risk of bias for allocation concealment and blinding. When compared to control, there was low-certainty evidence that renal denervation had little or no effect on the risk of myocardial infarction (4 studies, 742 participants; RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.45 to 3.84), ischaemic stroke (5 studies, 892 participants; RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.33 to 2.95), unstable angina (3 studies, 270 participants; RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.89) or hospitalisation (3 studies, 743 participants; RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.50 to 3.11). Based on moderate-certainty evidence, renal denervation may reduce 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) systolic BP (9 studies, 1045 participants; MD -5.29 mmHg, 95% CI -10.46 to -0.13), ABPM diastolic BP (8 studies, 1004 participants; MD -3.75 mmHg, 95% CI -7.10 to -0.39) and office diastolic BP (8 studies, 1049 participants; MD -4.61 mmHg, 95% CI -8.23 to -0.99). Conversely, this procedure had little or no effect on office systolic BP (10 studies, 1090 participants; MD -5.92 mmHg, 95% CI -12.94 to 1.10). Moderate-certainty evidence suggested that renal denervation may not reduce serum creatinine (5 studies, 721 participants, MD 0.03 mg/dL, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.13) and may not increase the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) or creatinine clearance (6 studies, 822 participants; MD -2.56 mL/min, 95% CI -7.53 to 2.42). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In patients with resistant hypertension, there is low-certainty evidence that renal denervation does not improve major cardiovascular outomes and renal function. Conversely, moderate-certainty evidence exists that it may improve 24h ABPM and diastolic office-measured BP. Future trials measuring patient-centred instead of surrogate outcomes, with longer follow-up periods, larger sample size and more standardised procedural methods are necessary to clarify the utility of this procedure in this population.
Topics: Antihypertensive Agents; Blood Pressure; Denervation; Humans; Hypertension; Kidney
PubMed: 34806762
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011499.pub3 -
The Journal of Hand Surgery Aug 2022The first carpometacarpal (CMC) joint is a frequent location of osteoarthritis in the hand. The denervation of the first CMC joint has gained traction as a viable...
PURPOSE
The first carpometacarpal (CMC) joint is a frequent location of osteoarthritis in the hand. The denervation of the first CMC joint has gained traction as a viable treatment for CMC arthritis. This study reviewed literature on CMC denervation for first CMC arthritis.
METHODS
A systematic review of papers and abstracts was conducted. The preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines were followed. Articles including the results of CMC denervation were included. We compiled data on patient demographics, preoperative testing, intraoperative technique, and postoperative outcomes. Anatomic literature was also reviewed to assess agreement on the innervation of the first CMC joint.
RESULTS
Six anatomic studies and 9 clinical studies were included in this systematic review. Pinch strength, grip strength, and Kapandji scores increased on average in patients. Pain relief was noted on average in patients in 5 studies that reported pain outcomes. In studies that reported postoperative complications, the most frequent complications were radial paresthesias, hypoesthesia dorsal and/or distal to the surgical site, and wound infection.
CONCLUSIONS
The innervation of the CMC joint is controversial. This is reflected in clinical practice, wherein varied surgical approaches are used. Carpometacarpal denervation shows promise as an option to treat patients with CMC arthritis without joint instability, but its results vary. Additional clinical studies with longer-term follow-up and control groups are necessary to better determine its longevity and efficacy.
TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
Therapeutic V.
Topics: Carpometacarpal Joints; Denervation; Humans; Osteoarthritis; Pain; Thumb
PubMed: 34509313
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2021.07.020