-
JAMA Network Open Nov 2020Many patients are admitted to the intensive care unit following surgery, and some of them will experience incomplete recovery. For patients in this situation,...
IMPORTANCE
Many patients are admitted to the intensive care unit following surgery, and some of them will experience incomplete recovery. For patients in this situation, preoperative discussions regarding patient values and preferences may direct care decisions. Existing literature shows that it is uncommon for surgeons to have these conversations preoperatively; it is unclear whether anesthesia professionals engage with patients on this topic prior to surgery.
OBJECTIVE
To review the literature on communication between patients and anesthesia professionals, with a focus on discussions related to postoperative critical care.
EVIDENCE REVIEW
MEDLINE and Web of Science were searched using specific search criteria from January 1980 to April 2020. Studies describing encounters between patients and anesthesia professionals were selected, and data regarding study objectives, study design, methodology, measures, outcomes, patient characteristics, and clinical setting were extracted and collated. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline was followed.
FINDINGS
A total of 12 studies including 1284 individual patient encounters were eligible for inclusion in the review. These studies demonstrated that communication between patients and anesthesia professionals related to postoperative care is rare: only 2 studies reported communication regarding adverse postoperative events, and this communication behavior was reported in only 46 of 1284 consultations (3.6%) across all studies. Additional findings were that communication during these encounters is dominated by anesthetic planning and perioperative logistics, with variable discussion of perioperative risks vs benefits and infrequent elicitation of patient values and preferences. Some data suggest that patients wish to be involved in perioperative decision-making but are often limited by an incomplete understanding of risks and benefits.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
This systematic review found that communication in anesthesia is dominated by anesthetic planning and discussion of preoperative logistics, whereas postoperative critical care is rarely discussed. Most patients who are admitted to an intensive care unit after a major operation will not have had a discussion regarding goals of care specific to protracted recovery or prolonged intensive care with their anesthesiologist.
Topics: Anesthesiology; Critical Care; Decision Making; Humans; Patient Preference; Physician-Patient Relations; Postoperative Care
PubMed: 33180130
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.23503 -
Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia =... Jun 2021The objective of this study was to provide a synthesis of the interventions designed to reduce medication errors in anesthetized patients. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The objective of this study was to provide a synthesis of the interventions designed to reduce medication errors in anesthetized patients.
METHODS
We electronically searched major databases using index and free-text keywords related to anesthesia and medication errors. We included cohort studies exploring interventions to reduce anesthetic medication errors in both adult and pediatric patients. The risk of bias for each study was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.
RESULTS
One thousand five-hundred and fifty-eight titles or abstracts were screened, and 56 full-text studies were assessed for eligibility; eight studies were included in the final analysis. Case reports and retrospective studies were excluded. The quality of most studies (n = 6) was graded as "low". There were three categories of interventions: I) multimodal interventions (6 studies, n = 900,170 medication administrations) showed a reduction in rates of errors of 21-35% per administration and 37-41% per anesthetic; II) improved labels (1 study, n = 55,426 medication administrations) resulted in a 37% reduction in rates of errors per anesthetic; and III) the effect of education was assessed in one study and showed no effect.
CONCLUSION
Multimodal interventions and improved labelling reduce medication errors in anesthetized patients.
Topics: Adult; Anesthesia; Anesthetics; Child; Humans; Medication Errors; Pharmaceutical Preparations; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 33709263
DOI: 10.1007/s12630-021-01959-7 -
CJEM Jun 2023The objective of this study was to synthesize indication-based evidence for NO for distress and pain in children. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
The objective of this study was to synthesize indication-based evidence for NO for distress and pain in children.
STUDY DESIGN
We included trials of NO in participants 0-21 years, reporting distress or pain for emergency department procedures. The primary outcome was procedural distress. Where meta-analysis was not possible, we used Tricco et al.'s classification of "neutral" (p ≥ 0.05), "favorable," or "unfavorable" (p < 0.05, supporting NO or comparator, respectively). We used the Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias tool and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system to evaluate risk of bias and quality of evidence, respectively.
RESULTS
We included 30 trials. For pain using the Visual Analog Scale (0-100 mm) during IV insertion, 70% NO (delta:-16.5; 95%CI:-28.6 to -4.4; p = 0.008; three trials; I = 0%) and 50% NO plus eutectic mixture of local anesthetics (EMLA) (delta:-1.2; 95%CI:-2.1 to -0.3; p = 0.007; two trials; I = 43%) were superior to EMLA. 50% NO was not superior to EMLA (delta:-0.4; 95%CI:-1.2 to 0.3; p = 0.26; two trials; I = 15%). For distress and pain during laceration repair, NO was "favorable" versus each of SC lidocaine, oxygen, and oral midazolam but "neutral" versus IV ketamine (five trials). For distress and pain during fracture reduction (three trials), NO was "neutral" versus each of IM meperidine plus promethazine, regional anesthesia, and IV ketamine plus midazolam. For distress and pain during lumbar puncture (one trial), NO was "favorable" versus oxygen. For distress and pain during urethral catheterization (one trial), NO was "neutral" versus oral midazolam. For pain during intramuscular injection (one trial), NO plus EMLA was "favorable" versus NO and EMLA alone. Common adverse effects of NO included nausea (4.4%), agitation (3.7%), and vomiting (3.6%) AEs were less frequent with NO alone (278/1147 (24.2%)) versus NO plus midazolam (48/52 (92.3%)) and NO plus fentanyl (123/201 (61.2%)).
CONCLUSIONS
There is sufficient evidence to recommend NO plus topical anesthetic for IV insertion and laceration repair. Adverse effects are greater when combined with other sedating agents.
Topics: Child; Adolescent; Humans; Nitrous Oxide; Midazolam; Ketamine; Lacerations; Pain; Anesthetics, Local; Lidocaine, Prilocaine Drug Combination; Oxygen
PubMed: 37171705
DOI: 10.1007/s43678-023-00507-0 -
Clinical Journal of Sport Medicine :... Jan 2021The use of local anesthetic painkilling injections to improve player availability is common practice in elite-level sport.
BACKGROUND
The use of local anesthetic painkilling injections to improve player availability is common practice in elite-level sport.
OBJECTIVE
To document the published use of local anesthetic injections in sport, according to number of injections, sites of injections, and complications reported.
DATA SOURCES
A systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, AMED, Cochrane Database of Systematic reviews, SportDiscus, EBSCO Host, and Google Scholar.
RESULTS
One thousand nine hundred seventy local anesthetic injections reported on 540 athletes in 10 studies (from rugby league, American football, Australian football, and soccer) were reviewed. The most common areas of injection were as follows: the acromioclavicular (AC) joint; hand (including fingers); sternoclavicular joint (including sternum); rib injuries; and iliac crest contusions.
DISCUSSION
This review found some evidence of long-term safety for a limited number of injection sites (eg, AC joint) and some evidence of immediate complications and harmful long-term consequences for other sites. The quality of evidence is not high, with little long-term data and a lack of independent verification of the effects of the injections. Ideally, long-term follow-up should be conducted to determine whether these injections are safe, with follow-up undertaken independently of the treating physician and team.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on limited publications, there is some evidence of long-term safety; however, there is a lack of clear proof of either absolute safety or long-term harm for many of these procedures. Physicians and players in professional sport should proceed with caution in using local anesthetic injections.
Topics: Anesthetics, Local; Athletes; Humans; Injections; Pain Management
PubMed: 30789366
DOI: 10.1097/JSM.0000000000000716 -
Pain Practice : the Official Journal of... Nov 2023Epidural analgesia is a common technique for managing perioperative and obstetric pain. Patients with cancer who cannot tolerate opioids or not responding to... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Epidural analgesia is a common technique for managing perioperative and obstetric pain. Patients with cancer who cannot tolerate opioids or not responding to conventional treatment may benefit from epidural analgesia. Therefore, this systematic review aimed to analyze the efficacy and safety of epidural analgesia in patients with intractable cancer pain.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify studies on patients with cancer who received epidural analgesia. We assessed the quality of all included studies using the risk-of-bias tool or Newcastle-Ottawa scale. The primary outcome was pain relief after epidural analgesia, and the secondary outcome was quality of life, analgesic consumption, and adverse events. The studies were grouped based on the medications used for epidural analgesia. A descriptive synthesis was performed following the Synthesis Without Meta-analysis reporting guideline.
RESULTS
Our systematic review included nine randomized controlled trials (n = 340) and 15 observational studies (n = 926). Two randomized controlled trials suggested that epidural opioids were not superior to systemic opioids in relieving pain. Epidural opioids combined with local anesthetics or adjuvants, including calcitonin, clonidine, ketamine, neostigmine, methadone, and dexamethasone, offered better analgesic effects. No significant difference in pain relief between an intermittent bolus and a continuous infusion of epidural morphine was observed. Epidural opioids had more analgesic effects on nociceptive pain than neuropathic pain. The methods used to evaluate the quality of life and the corresponding results were heterogeneous among studies. Six observational studies demonstrated that some patients could have decreased opioid consumption after epidural analgesia. Adverse events, including complications and drug-related side effects, were reported in 23 studies. Five serious complications, such as epidural abscess and hematoma, required surgical management. The heterogeneity and methodological limitations of the studies hindered meta-analysis and evidence-level determination.
CONCLUSION
Coadministration of epidural opioids, local anesthetics, and adjuvants may provide better pain relief for intractable cancer pain. However, we must assess the patients to ensure that the benefits outweigh the risks before epidural analgesia. Therefore, further high-quality studies are required.
Topics: Female; Humans; Pregnancy; Analgesia, Epidural; Analgesics; Analgesics, Opioid; Anesthetics, Local; Cancer Pain; Neoplasms; Pain, Postoperative; Quality of Life
PubMed: 37455298
DOI: 10.1111/papr.13273 -
Pain Practice : the Official Journal of... Jan 2022Various adjuvants for prolongation of intra-operative and postoperative analgesia have been clinically studied, but the safety and efficiency of nalbuphine as an... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
Various adjuvants for prolongation of intra-operative and postoperative analgesia have been clinically studied, but the safety and efficiency of nalbuphine as an adjuvant to local anesthetics in spinal anesthesia remains unconfirmed. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis about the effect of nalbuphine as an adjuvant to local anesthetics in spinal anesthesia in regard to time of onset of sensory blockade and motor blockade, duration of motor blockade, 2-segment sensory regression time, the duration of analgesia, and incidence of side effects to provide a reliable basis for clinical application.
METHODS
Databases, including PubMed, Cochrane, EMBASE, Web of Science, CNKI, CBM, WanFang, and Viper, were searched for eligible studies. Data were extracted according to the proposed inclusion and exclusion criteria, RevMan version 5.3 and Stata 16 were selected to perform meta-analysis.
RESULTS
Eighteen published studies including 1633 patients met the inclusion criteria. The results showed that adding nalbuphine to local anesthetics for spinal anesthesia can prolong two-segment sensory regression time (mean difference [MD] = 24.31; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 19.61-29.00, p < 0.001) and the duration of analgesia (MD = 118.11; 95% CI = 71.34-164.89, p < 0.001) without significantly increasing the incidence of adverse reactions in comparison to normal saline group. In addition, the analgesic effect of nalbuphine group was not statistically different from that of control group when compared with the potent opioid group, but the occurrence of hypotension (risk ratio [RR] = 0.35, 95% CI = 0.18-0.68, p < 0.01), the occurrence of shivering (RR = 0.19, 95% CI = 0.08-0.43, p < 0.01), and the occurrence of pruritus (RR = 0.23, 95% CI = 0.10-0.53, p < 0.01) was lower than the potent opioid group.
CONCLUSIONS
Nalbuphine as additives to local anesthetics can significantly prolong the two segments of sensory block and the average duration of analgesia without increasing the incidence of adverse reactions when compared with normal saline group. In addition, the analgesic efficacy of nalbuphine served as an adjunct to local anesthetics was clinically not different from that of the potent opioids, but the occurrence of hypotension, shivering, and pruritus was lower than the potent opioids.
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Anesthesia, Spinal; Anesthetics, Local; Humans; Nalbuphine
PubMed: 33887111
DOI: 10.1111/papr.13021 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2023Acute and chronic postoperative pain are important healthcare problems, which can be treated with a combination of opioids and regional anaesthesia. The erector spinae... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Acute and chronic postoperative pain are important healthcare problems, which can be treated with a combination of opioids and regional anaesthesia. The erector spinae plane block (ESPB) is a new regional anaesthesia technique, which might be able to reduce opioid consumption and related side effects.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the analgesic effects and side effect profile of ESPB against no block, placebo block or other regional anaesthetic techniques.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase and Web of Science on 4 January 2021 and updated the search on 3 January 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating adults undergoing surgery with general anaesthesia were included. We included ESPB in comparison with no block, placebo blocks or other regional anaesthesia techniques irrespective of language, publication year, publication status or technique of regional anaesthesia used (ultrasound, landmarks or peripheral nerve stimulator). Quasi-RCTs, cluster-RCTs, cross-over trials and studies investigating co-interventions in either arm were excluded.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed all trials for inclusion and exclusion criteria, and risk of bias (RoB), and extracted data. We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool, and we used GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence for the primary outcomes. The primary outcomes were postoperative pain at rest at 24 hours and block-related adverse events. Secondary outcomes were postoperative pain at rest (2, 48 hours) and during activity (2, 24 and 48 hours after surgery), chronic pain after three and six months, as well as cumulative oral morphine requirements at 2, 24 and 48 hours after surgery and rates of opioid-related side effects.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 69 RCTs in the first search and included these in the systematic review. We included 64 RCTs (3973 participants) in the meta-analysis. The outcome postoperative pain was reported in 38 out of 64 studies; block-related adverse events were reported in 40 out of 64 studies. We assessed RoB as low in 44 (56%), some concerns in 24 (31%) and high in 10 (13%) of the study results. Overall, 57 studies reported one or both primary outcomes. Only one study reported results on chronic pain after surgery. In the updated literature search on 3 January 2022 we found 37 new studies and categorised these as awaiting classification. ESPB compared to no block There is probably a slight but not clinically relevant reduction in pain intensity at rest 24 hours after surgery in patients treated with ESPB compared to no block (visual analogue scale (VAS), 0 to 10 points) (mean difference (MD) -0.77 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.08 to -0.46; 17 trials, 958 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There may be no difference in block-related adverse events between the groups treated with ESPB and those receiving no block (no events in 18 trials reported, 1045 participants, low-certainty evidence). ESPB compared to placebo block ESPB probably has no effect on postoperative pain intensity at rest 24 hours after surgery compared to placebo block (MD -0.14 points, 95% CI -0.29 to 0.00; 8 trials, 499 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There may be no difference in block-related adverse events between ESPB and placebo blocks (no events in 10 trials reported; 592 participants; low-certainty evidence). ESPB compared to other regional anaesthetic techniques Paravertebral block (PVB) ESPB may not have any additional effect on postoperative pain intensity at rest 24 hours after surgery compared to PVB (MD 0.23 points, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.52; 7 trials, 478 participants; low-certainty evidence). There is probably no difference in block-related adverse events (risk ratio (RR) 0.27, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.95; 7 trials, 522 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Transversus abdominis plane block (TAPB) ESPB may not have any additional effect on postoperative pain intensity at rest 24 hours after surgery compared to TAPB (MD -0.16 points, 95% CI -0.46 to 0.14; 3 trials, 160 participants; low-certainty evidence). There may be no difference in block-related adverse events (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.21 to 4.83; 4 trials, 202 participants; low-certainty evidence). Serratus anterior plane block (SAPB) The effect on postoperative pain could not be assessed because no studies reported this outcome. There may be no difference in block-related adverse events (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.59; 2 trials, 110 participants; low-certainty evidence). Pectoralis plane block (PECSB) ESPB may not have any additional effect on postoperative pain intensity at rest 24 hours after surgery compared to PECSB (MD 0.24 points, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.58; 2 trials, 98 participants; low-certainty evidence). The effect on block-related adverse events could not be assessed. Quadratus lumborum block (QLB) Only one study reported on each of the primary outcomes. Intercostal nerve block (ICNB) ESPB may not have any additional effect on postoperative pain intensity at rest 24 hours after surgery compared to ICNB, but this is uncertain (MD -0.33 points, 95% CI -3.02 to 2.35; 2 trials, 131 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There may be no difference in block-related adverse events, but this is uncertain (RR 0.09, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.28; 3 trials, 181 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Epidural analgesia (EA) We are uncertain whether ESPB has an effect on postoperative pain intensity at rest 24 hours after surgery compared to EA (MD 1.20 points, 95% CI -2.52 to 4.93; 2 trials, 81 participants; very low-certainty evidence). A risk ratio for block-related adverse events was not estimable because only one study reported this outcome.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
ESPB in addition to standard care probably does not improve postoperative pain intensity 24 hours after surgery compared to no block. The number of block-related adverse events following ESPB was low. Further research is required to study the possibility of extending the duration of analgesia. We identified 37 new studies in the updated search and there are three ongoing studies, suggesting possible changes to the effect estimates and the certainty of the evidence in the future.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Analgesics, Opioid; Chronic Pain; Pain, Postoperative; Analgesia, Epidural; Nerve Block; Anesthetics
PubMed: 37811665
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013763.pub2 -
Brazilian Journal of Anesthesiology... 2022Patient safety is a concept of great importance to managers, health professionals, and patients and their families, given patient safety promotes more effective care and... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE
Patient safety is a concept of great importance to managers, health professionals, and patients and their families, given patient safety promotes more effective care and reduces costs. Moreover, while analyzing the area of anesthesiology, one can realize the epidemiological changes, increased complexity and number of procedures, and the adoption of a new matrix of essential skills mandatory for residents of anesthesiology in Brazil. Thus, it is relevant to identify current patient safety competences among anesthesiology residents.
METHODS
A systematic review was elaborated using PubMed, SciELO, BVS, Cochrane Library, LILACS and CAPES databases with the descriptors "anesthesiology", "patient safety", "residency" and "competence".
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS
Thirteen articles published in the past 10 years were analyzed. The articles depicted competences grouped into three categories: knowledge (identification, prevention and management of adverse events; use of correct and up-to-date information; understanding of human factors; and continuous learning), skills (efficient communication; teamwork; leadership; decision-making; and self-confidence), and attitude (management of stress and fatigue; and infection control). All these skills can be developed and assessed through simulation and active learning methods, profiting from a multidisciplinary approach. Studies also reveal that residents perform poorly in certain patient safety domains due to lack of effective in-depth understanding, appreciation of the topic and ineffective teaching. As a result, greater investment in the topic is needed by teaching and health institutions and researchers.
Topics: Anesthesiology; Brazil; Clinical Competence; Humans; Internship and Residency; Patient Safety
PubMed: 35124107
DOI: 10.1016/j.bjane.2021.06.029 -
Anesthesia and Analgesia Mar 2021Whether propofol elicits a survival benefit over volatile anesthetics during cancer surgery remains inconclusive. The primary aim of this systematic review and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Whether propofol elicits a survival benefit over volatile anesthetics during cancer surgery remains inconclusive. The primary aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare the effects of propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) with any volatile anesthesia on long-term oncological outcomes. The secondary aim is to compare propofol-based TIVA with specific volatile agents on long-term oncological outcomes.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library from inception through March 3, 2020. Randomized control trials and observational studies that compared the effects of propofol-based TIVA and volatile anesthesia on long-term oncological outcomes, which also reported hazard ratios (HR) as effect estimates, were considered eligible for inclusion. Using the inverse variance method with a random-effects model, HR and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. Trial sequential analysis was incorporated to test if the results were subject to a type I or type II error.
RESULTS
Nineteen retrospective observational studies were included. Patients who received propofol-based TIVA during cancer surgery were associated with significantly better overall survival than those who received volatile anesthesia (HR = 0.79, 95% CI, 0.66-0.94, P = .008, I2 = 82%). In contrast, no statistically significant difference was observed in recurrence-free survival between patients who received propofol-based TIVA and volatile anesthesia during cancer surgery (HR = 0.81, 95% CI, 0.61-1.07, P = .137, I2 = 85%). In the subgroup analysis by different volatile anesthetics, patients who received propofol-based TIVA were associated with better overall survival than those who received desflurane (HR = 0.54, 95% CI, 0.36-0.80, P = .003, I2 = 80%). In contrast, there was no statistically significant difference in overall survival between patients who received propofol-based TIVA and those who received sevoflurane (HR = 0.92, 95% CI, 0.74-1.14, P = .439, I2 = 70%). In the trial sequential analysis of overall survival, the cumulative Z curve reached the required heterogeneity-adjusted information size and crossed the traditional significance boundary. In contrast, in the trial sequential analysis of recurrence-free survival, the cumulative Z curve did not cross the traditional significance boundary. However, the required heterogeneity-adjusted information size has not yet been reached.
CONCLUSIONS
Propofol-based TIVA is generally associated with better overall survival than volatile anesthesia during cancer surgery. Further large-scaled, high-quality randomized control trials are warranted to confirm our findings.
Topics: Administration, Inhalation; Administration, Intravenous; Aged; Anesthetics, Inhalation; Anesthetics, Intravenous; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Neoplasms; Progression-Free Survival; Propofol; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Time Factors
PubMed: 33105278
DOI: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000005237 -
International Journal of Surgery... Nov 2023The optimal approach for perioperative pain management in laparoscopic gynecological surgery is unclear due to a lack of comprehensive analysis, which limits the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Efficacy of nonopioid analgesics and regional techniques for perioperative pain management in laparoscopic gynecological surgery: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
The optimal approach for perioperative pain management in laparoscopic gynecological surgery is unclear due to a lack of comprehensive analysis, which limits the development of evidence-based enhanced recovery after surgery protocols. This study aimed to conduct a systematic review and network meta-analysis to support clinical decision-making for optimal analgesia.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
This study conducted a systematic literature search in PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and CINAHL from inception to 3 December 2021, and updated on 19 August 2022. Randomized controlled trials comparing the perioperative use of nonopioid analgesics and regional techniques in adults undergoing elective laparoscopic gynecological surgery under general anesthesia were included in the analysis, either alone or in combination. The co-analgesic interventions during the perioperative period for the intervention and control groups of each eligible study were also considered. We assessed the risk of bias using the Risk of Bias 2 tool and evaluated the certainty of evidence using the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA) approach. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was used to estimate the efficacy of the analgesic strategies. The primary outcomes were pain score at rest and cumulative oral morphine milligram equivalents at 24 h postoperatively.
RESULTS
Overall, 108 studies with 9582 participants and 35 different interventions were included. Compared with inert treatments, combinations of two or more interventions showed better efficacy and longer duration in reducing postoperative pain and opioid consumption within 24 h than monotherapies, and showed stepwise enhanced effects with increasing analgesic modes. In combination therapies, regional techniques that included peripheral nerve blocks and intraperitoneal local anesthetics, in combination with nonopioid systemic analgesics, or combining local anesthetics with adjuvant drugs, were found to be more effective. Monotherapies were found to be mostly ineffective. The most effective peripheral nerve blocks were found to be ultrasound-guided transversus abdominis plane block with adjuvant and ultrasound-guided quadratus lumborum block.
CONCLUSIONS
These results provide robust evidence for the routine use of regional techniques in combination with nonopioid analgesics in perioperative pain management. However, further better quality and larger trials are needed, considering the low confidence levels for certain interventions.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Female; Anesthetics, Local; Pain Management; Analgesics, Non-Narcotic; Network Meta-Analysis; Bayes Theorem; Analgesics; Analgesics, Opioid; Pain, Postoperative; Laparoscopy; Gynecologic Surgical Procedures
PubMed: 37534670
DOI: 10.1097/JS9.0000000000000630