-
British Journal of Anaesthesia Apr 2017Safe and efficacious modalities of perioperative analgesia are essential for enhanced recovery after surgery. Truncal nerve blocks are one potential adjunct for...
BACKGROUND.
Safe and efficacious modalities of perioperative analgesia are essential for enhanced recovery after surgery. Truncal nerve blocks are one potential adjunct for analgesia of the abdominal wall, and in recent years their popularity has increased. Transversus abdominis plane block (TAPB) and rectus sheath block (RSB) have been shown to reduce morphine consumption and improve pain relief after abdominal surgery. These blocks typically require large volumes of local anaesthetic (LA). We aimed to synthesize studies evaluating systemic concentrations of LA after perioperative TAP and RSB to enhance our understanding of systemic LA absorption and the risk of systemic toxicity.
METHODS.
An independent literature review was performed in accordance with the methods outlined in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. An electronic search of four databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and PubMed) was conducted. Primary articles measuring systemic concentrations of LA after single-shot bolus TAPB or RSB were included.
RESULTS.
Fifteen studies met the inclusion criteria. Rapid systemic LA absorption was observed in all studies. Of a total of 381 patients, mean peak concentrations of LA exceeded toxic thresholds in 33 patients, of whom three reported mild adverse effects. The addition of epinephrine reduced systemic absorption of LA. No instances of seizure or cardiac instability were observed.
CONCLUSIONS.
Local anaesthetic in TAPB and RSB can lead to detectable systemic concentrations that exceed commonly accepted thresholds of LA systemic toxicity. Our study highlights that these techniques are relatively safe with regard to LA systemic toxicity.
Topics: Abdominal Wall; Anesthetics, Local; Humans; Nerve Block
PubMed: 28403398
DOI: 10.1093/bja/aex005 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2019A parastomal hernia is defined as an incisional hernia related to a stoma, and belongs to the most common stoma-related complications. Many factors, which are considered... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
A parastomal hernia is defined as an incisional hernia related to a stoma, and belongs to the most common stoma-related complications. Many factors, which are considered to influence the incidence of parastomal herniation, have been investigated. However, it remains unclear whether the enterostomy should be placed through, or lateral to the rectus abdominis muscle, in order to prevent parastomal herniation and other important stoma complications.
OBJECTIVES
To assess if there is a difference regarding the incidence of parastomal herniation and other stoma complications, such as ileus and stenosis, in lateral pararectal versus transrectal stoma placement in people undergoing elective or emergency abdominal wall enterostomy.
SEARCH METHODS
For this update, we searched for all types of published and unpublished randomized and non-randomized studies in four medical databases: CENTRAL, PubMed, LILACS, Science Ciation Index, and two trials registers: ICTRP Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov to 9 November 2018. We applied no language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized and non-randomized studies comparing lateral pararectal versus transrectal stoma placement with regard to parastomal herniation and other stoma-related complications.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently assessed study quality and extracted data. We conducted data analyses according to the recommendations of Cochrane and the Cochrane Colorectal Cancer Group (CCCG). We rated quality of evidence according to the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
Randomized controlled trials (RCT)Only one RCT met the inclusion criteria. The participants underwent enterostomy placement in the frame of an operation for: rectal cancer (37/60), ulcerative colitis (14/60), familial adenomatous polyposis (7/60), and other (2/60).The results between the lateral pararectal and the transrectal approach groups were inconclusive for the incidence of parastomal herniation (risk ratio (RR) 1.34, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40 to 4.48; low-quality evidence); development of ileus or stenosis (RR 2.0, 95% CI 0.19 to 20.9; low-quality evidence); or skin irritation (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.21 to 2.13; moderate-quality evidence). The results were also inconclusive for the subgroup analysis in which we compared the effect of ileostomy versus colostomy on parastomal herniation. The study did not measured other stoma-related morbidities, or stoma-related mortality, but did measure quality of life, which was not one of our outcomes of interest.Non-randomized studies (NRS)Ten retrospective cohort studies, with a total of 864 participants, met the inclusion criteria. The indications for enterostomy placement and the baseline characteristics of the participants (age, co-morbidities, disease-severity) varied between studies. All included studies reported results for the primary outcome (parastomal herniation) and one study also reported data on one of the secondary outcomes (stomal prolapse).The effects of different surgical approaches on parastomal herniation (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.75; 10 studies, 864 participants; very low-quality evidence) and the occurrence of stomal prolapse (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.39 to 3.85; 1 study, 145 participants; very low-quality evidence) are uncertain.None of the included studies measured other stoma-related morbidity or stoma-related mortality.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The present systematic review of randomized and non-randomized studies found inconsistent results between the two compared interventions regarding their potential to prevent parastomal herniation.In conclusion, there is still a lack of high-quality evidence to support the ideal surgical technique of stoma formation. The available moderate-, low-, and very low-quality evidence, does not support or refute the superiority of one of the studied stoma formation techniques over the other.
Topics: Anastomosis, Surgical; Colostomy; Hernia, Ventral; Humans; Ileostomy; Prolapse; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rectum; Rectus Abdominis; Surgical Stomas
PubMed: 31016723
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009487.pub3 -
Acta Bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis Dec 2019The rectus-adductor syndrome is a common cause of groin pain. In literature the adductor longus is reported as the most frequent site of injury so that the syndrome can... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study
BACKGROUND AND AIM OF THE WORK
The rectus-adductor syndrome is a common cause of groin pain. In literature the adductor longus is reported as the most frequent site of injury so that the syndrome can be fitted into the adductor related groin pain (ARGP) group. The aim of this study was to define what is the best treatment between surgical and conservative in athletes affected by ARGP in terms of healing and return to play (RTP) time.
METHODS
A systematic review was performed searching for articles describing studies on RTP time for surgical or conservative interventions for ARGP. A qualitative synthesis was performed. Only 10 out 7607 articles were included in this systematic review. An exploratory meta-analysis was carried out. Due to high heterogeneity of the included studies, raw means of surgery and conservative treatment groups were pooled separately. A random effects model was used.
RESULTS
The results showed quicker RTP time for surgery when pooled raw means were compared to conservative treatments: 11,23 weeks (CI 95%, 8.18,14.28, p<0.0001, I^2=99%) vs 14,9 weeks (CI 95%, 13.05,16.76, p<0.0001, I^2 = 77%). The pooled results showed high statistical heterogeneity (I^2), especially in the surgical group.
CONCLUSIONS
Surgical interventions are associated with quicker RTP time in athletes affected by ARGP, but due to the high heterogeneity of the available studies and the lack of dedicated RCTs this topic needs to be investigated with dedicated high quality RCT studies.
Topics: Athletic Injuries; Conservative Treatment; Groin; Humans; Pain; Rectus Abdominis; Syndrome
PubMed: 31821279
DOI: 10.23750/abm.v90i12-S.8962 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2019The use of ultrasound guidance for regional anaesthesia has become popular over the past two decades. However, it is not recognized by all experts as an essential tool,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The use of ultrasound guidance for regional anaesthesia has become popular over the past two decades. However, it is not recognized by all experts as an essential tool, perhaps because it is unclear whether ultrasound reduces the risk of severe neurological complications, and the cost of an ultrasound machine (USD 22,000) is substantially higher than the cost of other tools. This review was published in 2016 and updated in 2019.
OBJECTIVES
To determine whether ultrasound guidance offers any clinical advantage when neuraxial and peripheral nerve blocks are performed in children in terms of decreasing failure rate or the rate of complications.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two trial registers up to March 2018 together with reference checking to identify additional studies and contacted study authors to obtain additional trial information.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all parallel randomized controlled trials that evaluated the effects of ultrasound guidance used when a regional blockade technique was performed in children. We included studies performed in children (≤ 18 years of age) undergoing any type of surgical procedure (open or laparoscopic), for which a neuraxial (spinal, epidural, caudal, or combined spinal and epidural) or peripheral nerve block (any peripheral nerve block including fascial (fascia iliaca, transversus abdominis plane, rectus sheath blocks) or perivascular blocks), for surgical anaesthesia (alone or in combination with general anaesthesia) or for postoperative analgesia, was performed with ultrasound guidance. We excluded studies in which regional blockade was used to treat chronic pain.We included studies in which ultrasound guidance was used to perform the technique in real time (in-plane or out-of-plane), as pre-scanning before the procedure or to evaluate the spread of the local anaesthetic so the position of the needle could be adjusted or the block complemented. For control groups, any other technique used to perform the block including landmarks, loss of resistance (air or fluid), click, paraesthesia, nerve stimulator, transarterial, or infiltration was accepted.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were failed blocks, pain scores at one hour after surgery, and block duration. Secondary outcomes included time to perform the block, number of needle passes, and minor and major complications. We used GRADE to assess the quality of evidence for each outcome.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 33 trials with a total of 2293 participants from 0.9 to 12 (mean or median) years of age. Most trials were at low risk of selection, detection, attrition, and reporting bias, however the lack of blinding of participants and personnel caring for participants resulted in 25 trials being judged as at high or unclear risk of bias. We identified five ongoing trials.Ultrasound guidance probably reduces the risk of failed block (risk difference (RD) -0.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.25 to -0.07; 22 trials; 1789 participants; moderate-quality evidence). When ultrasound guidance was used, there was a small to moderate reduction in pain one hour after surgery, equivalent to a reduction of 1.3 points on the revised Bieri FACES pain scale (scale; 0 = no pain, 10 = maximal pain) (standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.41, 95% CI -0.74 to -0.07 (medium effect size); 15 trials; 982 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Ultrasound guidance increases block duration by the equivalent of 42 minutes (SMD 1.24, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.75; 10 trials; 460 participants; high-quality evidence).There is probably little or no difference in the time taken to perform the block (SMD -0.46, 95% CI -1.06 to 0.13; 9 trials; 680 participants; moderate-quality evidence). It is uncertain whether the number of needle passes required is reduced with the use of ultrasound guidance (SMD -0.63, 95% CI -1.08 to -0.18; 3 trials; 256 participants; very low-quality evidence).There were no occurrences of major complications in either the intervention or control arms of the trials (cardiac arrest from local anaesthetic toxicity (22 trials; 1576 participants; moderate-quality evidence); lasting neurological injury (19 trials; 1250 participants; low-quality evidence)).There may be little of no difference in the risk of bloody puncture (RD -0.02, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.00; 13 trials; 896 participants; low-quality evidence) or transient neurological injury (RD -0.00, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.01; 18 trials; 1230 participants; low-quality evidence). There were no occurrences of seizure from local anaesthetic toxicity (22 trials; 1576 participants; moderate-quality evidence) or block infections without neurological injury (18 trials; 1238 participants; low-quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Ultrasound guidance for regional blockade in children probably decreases the risk of failed block. It increases the duration of the block and probably decreases pain scores at one hour after surgery. There may be little or no difference in the risks of some minor complications. The five ongoing studies may alter the conclusions of the review once published and assessed.
Topics: Child; Child, Preschool; Humans; Infant; Nerve Block; Perioperative Care; Peripheral Nervous System; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Surgical Procedures, Operative; Time Factors; Ultrasonography, Interventional
PubMed: 30820938
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011436.pub3 -
Medicine Sep 2020Adverse outcomes after unilateral vs bilateral breast reconstruction involve an unknown level of risk that warrants thorough investigation. (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Adverse outcomes after unilateral vs bilateral breast reconstruction involve an unknown level of risk that warrants thorough investigation.
METHODS
To address this research need, PubMed, Ovid, Medline, EMBASE, and Scopus databases were searched through systematically from January 1, 1990, to January 1, 2019 to retrieve the relevant studies on the risk of postoperative complications after unilateral vs bilateral abdominal flap breast reconstruction. According to the pre-designed inclusion criteria, available data were extracted from the relevant studies, and then analyzed comparatively in order to identify the relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) applying either a random or a fixed effects model.
RESULTS
Eventually, 20 studies involving 8122 female subjects met the inclusion criteria. It was found that unilateral reconstruction involved a significantly higher risk of flap loss (RR: 1.56, 95% CI: 1.21-2.00; P < .05) and fat necrosis (RR: 1.60, 95% CI: 1.23-2.09; P < .05) compared to bilateral reconstruction, while bilateral reconstruction involved a greater risk of abdominal hernia/bulge (RR: 1.67, 95% CI: 1.25-2.24; P < .05). The risk was found to be higher following bilateral free transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous (fTRAM) flaps in comparison with deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flaps (RR: 2.62, 95% CI: 1.33-5.15; P < .05).
CONCLUSION
The risk of postoperative flap complications in unilateral breast reconstruction is significantly higher than that in bilateral reconstruction. Contrarily, the abdominal complications were significantly higher in the bilateral group vs the unilateral group. Meanwhile, the risk of abdominal hernia/bulge complication after bilateral breast reconstruction was significantly higher with fTRAM vs DIEP. Therefore, DIEP flaps are recommended in priority for bilateral breast reconstruction, unless specifically contraindicated.
Topics: Female; Humans; Mammaplasty; Postoperative Complications; Surgical Flaps
PubMed: 32925752
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000022096