-
Journal of Anesthesia Apr 2021This review compares the effects of peripheral dexamethasone and dexmedetomidine on postoperative analgesia. We included six randomized controlled trials (354 patients)... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Comparison of postoperative analgesic effects in response to either dexamethasone or dexmedetomidine as local anesthetic adjuvants: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
This review compares the effects of peripheral dexamethasone and dexmedetomidine on postoperative analgesia. We included six randomized controlled trials (354 patients) through a systematic literature search. We found that analgesia duration was comparable between dexamethasone and dexmedetomidine (58.59 min, 95% CI (confidence interval), - 66.13, 183.31 min) with extreme heterogeneity. Secondary outcome was also compared and no significant difference was observed in sensory block onset and duration and motor block duration and also for postoperative nausea and vomiting. It is noteworthy that dexamethasone reduced analgesic consumption (fentanyl) by 29.12 mcg compared with dexmedetomidine. We performed subgroup analyses and found no significant difference between the following: (1) lidocaine vs ropivacaine (P = 0.28), (2) nerve block vs nerve block + general anesthesia (P = 0.47), and (3) upper limb surgery vs thoracoscopic pneumonectomy (P = 0.27). We applied trial sequential analysis to assess the risks of type I and II errors and concluded that the meta-analysis was insufficiently powered to answer the clinical question, and further analysis is needed to establish which adjuvant is better. In conclusion, we believe that existing research indicates that dexamethasone and dexmedetomidine have equivalent analgesic effects in peripheral nerve blocks.
Topics: Adjuvants, Anesthesia; Anesthetics, Local; Dexamethasone; Dexmedetomidine; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 33515302
DOI: 10.1007/s00540-021-02895-y -
Journal of Pain Research 2020Erector spinae plane block (ESPB) as a new trunk fascia block technique was proposed in 2016. ESPB has aroused the interest of many nerve block experts. However, there... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Erector spinae plane block (ESPB) as a new trunk fascia block technique was proposed in 2016. ESPB has aroused the interest of many nerve block experts. However, there are few clinical studies on ESPB for lumbar surgery, and its effectiveness and safety are controversial. The goal of this review is to summarize the use of ESPB for lumbar spine surgery in order to better understand this technique.
METHODS
PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane library and ClinicalTrial.gov databases were searched up to July 30, 2019. According to the inclusion and exclusion criteria established in advance, "lumbar spine surgery" and "ESPB" related MesH terms and free-text words were used. Data on pain scores, analgesic consumptions and adverse effects were reported. All processes follow PRISMA statement guidelines.
RESULTS
A total of 171 participants from 11 publications were identified, including two randomized controlled trials (RCTs), one retrospective cohort study, four case reports and four cases series. Block operation planes from T8 to L4. The main anesthetics used in the block are bupivacaine, ropivacaine and lidocaine. There was evidence for reducing postoperative pain scores and analgesic consumptions.
CONCLUSION
The effectiveness and safety of ESPB for lumbar spine surgery are still controversial. The current evidence is insufficient to support the widespread use of ESPB for lumbar spine surgery. High-quality RCTs are urgently needed.
PubMed: 32669870
DOI: 10.2147/JPR.S256205 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2019Spinal anaesthesia has been implicated as one of the possible causes of neurological complications following surgical procedures. This painful condition,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Spinal anaesthesia has been implicated as one of the possible causes of neurological complications following surgical procedures. This painful condition, occurring during the immediate postoperative period, is termed transient neurological symptoms (TNS) and is typically observed after the use of spinal lidocaine. Alternatives to lidocaine that can provide high-quality anaesthesia without TNS development are needed. This review was originally published in 2005, and last updated in 2009.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the frequency of TNS after spinal anaesthesia with lidocaine and compare it with other types of local anaesthetics by performing a meta-analysis for all pair-wise comparisons, and conducting network meta-analysis (NMA) to rank interventions.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Elsevier Embase, and LILACS on 25 November 2018. We searched clinical trial registries and handsearched the reference lists of trials and review articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials comparing the frequency of TNS after spinal anaesthesia with lidocaine to other local anaesthetics. Studies had to have two or more arms that used distinct local anaesthetics (irrespective of the concentration and baricity of the solution) for spinal anaesthesia in preparation for surgery. We included adults who received spinal anaesthesia and considered all pregnant participants as a subgroup. The follow-up period for TNS was at least 24 hours.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Four review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion. Three review authors independently evaluated the quality of the relevant studies and extracted the data from the included studies. We performed meta-analysis for all pair-wise comparisons of local anaesthetics, as well as NMA. We used an inverse variance weighting for summary statistics and a random-effects model as we expected methodological and clinical heterogeneity across the included studies resulting in varying effect sizes between studies of pair-wise comparisons. The NMA used all included studies based on a graph theoretical approach within a frequentist framework. Finally, we ranked the competing treatments by P scores.
MAIN RESULTS
The analysis included 24 trials reporting on 2226 participants of whom 239 developed TNS. Two studies are awaiting classification and one is ongoing. Included studies mostly had unclear to high risk of bias. The NMA included 24 studies and eight different local anaesthetics; the number of pair-wise comparisons was 32 and the number of different pair-wise comparisons was 11. This analysis showed that, compared to lidocaine, the risk ratio (RR) of TNS was lower for bupivacaine, levobupivacaine, prilocaine, procaine, and ropivacaine with RRs in the range of 0.10 to 0.23 while 2-chloroprocaine and mepivacaine did not differ in terms of RR of TNS development compared to lidocaine. Pair-wise meta-analysis showed that compared with lidocaine, most local anaesthetics were associated with a reduced risk of TNS development (except 2-chloroprocaine and mepivacaine) (bupivacaine: RR 0.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.09 to 0.28; 12 studies; moderate-quality evidence; 2-chloroprocaine: RR 0.09, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.51; 2 studies; low-quality evidence; levobupivacaine: RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.69; 2 studies; low-quality evidence; mepivacaine: RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.18 to 5.82; 4 studies; very low-quality evidence; prilocaine: RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.49; 4 studies; moderate-quality evidence; procaine: RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.52; 2 studies; moderate-quality evidence; ropivacaine: RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.78; 2 studies; low-quality evidence). We were unable to perform any of our planned subgroup analyses due to the low number of TNS events.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Results from both NMA and pair-wise meta-analysis indicate that the risk of developing TNS after spinal anaesthesia is lower when bupivacaine, levobupivacaine, prilocaine, procaine, and ropivacaine are used compared to lidocaine. The use of 2-chloroprocaine and mepivacaine had a similar risk to lidocaine in terms of TNS development after spinal anaesthesia. Patients should be informed of TNS as a possible adverse effect of local anaesthesia with lidocaine and the choice of anaesthetic agent should be based on the specific clinical context and parameters such as the expected duration of the procedure and the quality of anaesthesia. Due to the very low- to moderate-quality evidence (GRADE), future research efforts in this field are required to assess alternatives to lidocaine that would be able to provide high-quality anaesthesia without TNS development. The two studies awaiting classification and one ongoing study may alter the conclusions of the review once assessed.
Topics: Anesthesia, Local; Anesthesia, Spinal; Anesthetics, Local; Humans; Lidocaine; Network Meta-Analysis; Pain; Peripheral Nervous System Diseases; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 31786810
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003006.pub4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2018Childbirth may cause the most severe pain some women experience in their lifetime. Epidural analgesia is an effective form of pain relief during labour and is considered... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Childbirth may cause the most severe pain some women experience in their lifetime. Epidural analgesia is an effective form of pain relief during labour and is considered to be the reference standard. Traditionally epidural analgesia has been delivered as a continuous infusion via a catheter in the epidural space, with or without the ability for the patient to supplement the analgesia received by activating a programmable pump to deliver additional top-up doses, known as patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA). There has been interest in delivering maintenance analgesic medication via bolus dosing (automated mandatory bolus - AMB) instead of the traditional continuous basal infusion (BI); recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have shown that the AMB technique leads to improved analgesia and maternal satisfaction.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of automated mandatory bolus versus basal infusion for maintaining epidural analgesia in labour.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, the World Health Organization International Clinial Trials Registry Platform (WHO-ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov on 16 January 2018. We screened the reference lists of all eligible trials and reviews. We also contacted authors of included studies in this field in order to identify unpublished research and trials still underway, and we screened the reference lists of the included articles for potentially relevant articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all RCTs that compared the use of bolus dosing AMB with continuous BI for providing pain relief during epidural analgesia for labour in women.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were: risk of breakthrough pain with the need for anaesthetic intervention; risk of caesarean delivery; risk of instrumental delivery. Secondary outcomes included: duration of labour; local anaesthetic consumption. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 12 studies with a total of 1121 women. Ten studies enrolled healthy nulliparous women only and two studies enrolled healthy parous women at term as well. All studies excluded women with complicated pregnancies. There were variations in the technique of initiation of epidural analgesia. Seven studies utilized the combined spinal epidural (CSE) technique, and the other five studies only placed an epidural catheter without any intrathecal injection. Seven studies utilized ropivacaine: six with fentanyl and one with sufentanil. Two studies used levobupivacaine: one with sufentanil and one with fentanyl. Three used bupivacaine with or without fentanyl. The overall risk of bias of the studies was low.AMB probably reduces the risk of breakthrough pain compared with BI for maintaining epidural analgesia for labour (from 33% to 20%; risk ratio (RR) 0.60; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.39 to 0.92, 10 studies, 797 women, moderate-certainty evidence). AMB may make little or no difference to the risk of caesarean delivery compared to BI (15% and 16% respectively; RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.70 to 1.21, 11 studies, 1079 women, low-certainty evidence).AMB may make little or no difference in the risk of instrumental delivery compared to BI (12% and 9% respectively; RR 0.75; 95% CI 0.54 to 1.06, 11 studies, 1079 women, low-certainty evidence). There is probably little or no difference in the mean duration of labour with AMB compared to BI (mean difference (MD) -10.38 min; 95% CI -26.73 to 5.96, 11 studies, 1079 women, moderate-certainty evidence). There is probably a reduction in the hourly consumption of local anaesthetic with AMB compared to BI for maintaining epidural analgesia during labour (MD -1.08 mg/h; 95% CI -1.78 to -0.38, 12 studies, 1121 women, moderate-certainty evidence). Five out of seven studies reported an increase in maternal satisfaction with AMB compared to BI for maintaining epidural analgesia for labour; however, we did not pool these data due to their ordinal nature. Seven studies reported Apgar scores, though there was significant heterogeneity in reporting. None of the studies showed any significant difference between Apgar scores between groups.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is predominantly moderate-certainty evidence that AMB is similar to BI for maintaining epidural analgesia for labour for all measured outcomes and may have the benefit of decreasing the risk of breakthrough pain and improving maternal satisfaction while decreasing the amount of local anaesthetic needed.
Topics: Analgesia, Epidural; Analgesia, Obstetrical; Analgesia, Patient-Controlled; Automation; Female; Humans; Labor Pain; Labor, Obstetric; Pregnancy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 29770432
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011344.pub2 -
PloS One 2018Magnesium has been investigated as an adjuvant for neuraxial anesthesia, but the effect of caudal magnesium on postoperative pain is inconsistent. The aim of this... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Effect of magnesium added to local anesthetics for caudal anesthesia on postoperative pain in pediatric surgical patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis with Trial Sequential Analysis.
BACKGROUND
Magnesium has been investigated as an adjuvant for neuraxial anesthesia, but the effect of caudal magnesium on postoperative pain is inconsistent. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the analgesic effect of caudal magnesium.
METHODS
We searched six databases, including trial registration sites. Randomized clinical trials reporting the effect of caudal magnesium on postoperative pain after general anesthesia were eligible. The risk ratio for use of rescue analgesics after surgery was combined using a random-effects model. We also assessed adverse events. The I2 statistic was used to assess heterogeneity. We assessed risk of bias with Cochrane domains. We controlled type I and II errors due to sparse data and repetitive testing with Trial Sequential Analysis. We assessed the quality of evidence with GRADE.
RESULTS
Four randomized controlled trials (247 patients) evaluated the need for rescue analgesics. In all four trials, 50 mg of magnesium was administered with caudal ropivacaine. The results suggested that the need for rescue analgesia was reduced significantly by caudal magnesium administration (risk ratio 0.45; 95% confidence interval 0.24-0.86). There was considerable heterogeneity as indicated by an I2 value of 62.5%. The Trial Sequential Analysis-adjusted confidence interval was 0.04-5.55, indicating that further trials are required. The quality of evidence was very low. The rate of adverse events was comparable between treatment groups.
CONCLUSION
Caudal magnesium may reduce the need for rescue analgesia after surgery, but further randomized clinical trials with a low risk of bias and a low risk of random errors are necessary to assess the effect of caudal magnesium on postoperative pain and adverse events.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry UMIN000025344.
Topics: Anesthesia, Caudal; Anesthetics, Local; Child; Child, Preschool; Humans; Infant; Magnesium; Pain, Postoperative; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Surgical Procedures, Operative
PubMed: 29293586
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0190354 -
British Journal of Anaesthesia Aug 2017Perineural dexamethasone has gained popularity in regional anaesthesia to prolong the duration of analgesia, but its advantage over systemic administration is disputed.... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
Perineural dexamethasone has gained popularity in regional anaesthesia to prolong the duration of analgesia, but its advantage over systemic administration is disputed. The objective of this meta-analysis was to compare the analgesic efficacy of both routes of administration during peripheral nerve block. The methodology followed the PRISMA statement guidelines. The primary outcome was the duration of analgesia analysed according to the type of local anaesthetic administered (bupivacaine or ropivacaine). Secondary outcomes included cumulative opioid consumption in morphine i.v. equivalents, pain scores, and complication rates (neurological complications, infection, or hyperglycaemia). Eleven controlled trials, including 914 patients, were identified. The duration of analgesia was significantly increased with perineural dexamethasone vs systemic dexamethasone by a mean difference of 3 h [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.4, 4.5 h; P=0.0001]. Subgroup analysis revealed that the duration of analgesia was increased by 21% with bupivacaine (mean difference: 4.0 h; 95% CI: 2.8, 5.2 h; P<0.00001) and 12% with ropivacaine (mean difference: 2.0 h; 95% CI: -0.5, 4.5 h; P=0.11). The quality of evidence for our primary outcome was moderate according to the GRADE system. There were no significant differences in other secondary outcomes. No neurological complications or infections were reported. Glucose concentrations were not increased when dexamethasone was injected systemically, but this outcome was reported by only two trials. There is, therefore, moderate evidence that perineural dexamethasone combined with bupivacaine, but not ropivacaine, slightly prolongs the duration of analgesia, without an impact on other pain-related outcomes, when compared with systemic dexamethasone. Injection of perineural dexamethasone should be cautiously balanced in light of the off-label indication for this route of administration.
Topics: Analgesia; Blood Glucose; Bupivacaine; Dexamethasone; Humans; Nerve Block; Pain, Postoperative; Time Factors
PubMed: 28854551
DOI: 10.1093/bja/aex191 -
BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care Dec 2018Critical limb ischaemia (CLI) is a severe manifestation of peripheral arterial disease, characterised by chronic ischaemic rest pain, ulcers or gangrene. Management of...
BACKGROUND
Critical limb ischaemia (CLI) is a severe manifestation of peripheral arterial disease, characterised by chronic ischaemic rest pain, ulcers or gangrene. Management of ischaemic pain is challenging in patients with no options for revascularisation and optimal pharmacological therapies have not been established.
OBJECTIVES
To identify and evaluate the effectiveness of pharmacological therapies to treat ischaemic pain secondary to non-reconstructable CLI.
METHODS
This systematic review was reported in accordance with PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guideline. Comprehensive searches of three electronic databases, a PubMed-related articles link search, grey literature search and hand-searches of the bibliographies of relevant papers and textbooks were performed. Studies recruiting adult patients with CLI of any aetiology were eligible for inclusion. Surgical and revascularisation procedures, and all invasive interventions were excluded.
RESULTS
Of 792 studies, six met full inclusion criteria. These studies researched the use of intravenous lidocaine, intravenous ketamine, oral gabapentin and the combination of transdermal buprenorphine and epidural morphine/ropivacaine infusion. All studies showed an improvement in severity of ischaemic pain in CLI but with varying side effect profiles and quality. The extracted studies showed substantial heterogeneity and therefore a meta-analysis was not performed.
CONCLUSION
The pharmacological management of pain secondary to non-reconstructable CLI is a challenging review topic. No recommendations of pharmacological agents can be made following this review but a number of novel approaches to manage pain in this cohort have shown positive results and require further investigation.
Topics: Analgesics; Chronic Pain; Extremities; Female; Gangrene; Humans; Ischemia; Male; Musculoskeletal Pain; Pain Management; Peripheral Arterial Disease; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Skin Ulcer
PubMed: 28835456
DOI: 10.1136/bmjspcare-2017-001359 -
International Journal of Surgery... Aug 2017Pain is one of the important reasons for delayed discharge and Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. To assess the benefits and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Pain is one of the important reasons for delayed discharge and Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. To assess the benefits and disadvantage of intraperitoneal instillation of ropivacaine in people undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
METHODS
We searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Science Citation Index Expanded to December 2016 to identify randomised clinical trials of relevance to this review. We analysed the data with Review Manager 5 analysis.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 12 suitable studies. A total of 853 participants were randomised to intraperitoneal ropivacaine instillation (442 participants) versus "no intraperitoneal ropivacaine instillation" (411 participants). The pain scores as measured by the visual analogue scale (VAS) were significantly lower in the ropivacaine instillation group than the control group at 4-8 h (10 trials; 751 participants; MD -0.64 cm; 95% CI -0.86 to -0.43; p < 0.00001) and at 9-24 h (9 trials; 582 participants; MD -0.47 cm; 95% CI -0.66 to -0.28; p < 0.00001).The proportion of people who developed the adverse events were less in the ropivacaine instillation group than the control group(RR 0.60; 95% CI 0.45 to 0.79; p = 0.0002). There was no significant difference in the Post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) stay time between the two groups (3 trials; 197 participants; MD -3.77 min; 95% CI -10.24 to 2.69). The overall quality of evidence was very low. Further trials are necessary.
Topics: Adult; Amides; Anesthetics, Local; Cholecystectomy, Laparoscopic; Female; Humans; Infusions, Parenteral; Length of Stay; Male; Middle Aged; Pain Measurement; Pain, Postoperative; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Ropivacaine; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 28669869
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2017.06.043 -
British Journal of Anaesthesia Feb 2017The increased popularity of paravertebral block (PVB) can be attributed to its relative safety and comparable efficacy when compared with epidural analgesia. It has thus... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The increased popularity of paravertebral block (PVB) can be attributed to its relative safety and comparable efficacy when compared with epidural analgesia. It has thus been recommended for open cholecystectomy and other less painful surgeries such as inguinal herniorraphy and appendectomy. We performed a systematic review of PVB in paediatric abdominal conditions to assess its clinical efficacy and side effects compared with other analgesic therapies.A search of Medline, Embase, and Web of Science and hand-searching references from inception date to May 2016 was done. Relevant studies were randomized clinical trials in patients 0-18 years old comparing PVB (single shot or continuous catheter) with any comparator and analgesic medication. Pain scores, rescue analgesia and adverse events were compared.The systematic reviews identified six trials enrolling 358 paediatric patients. PVB medications included bupivacaine, ropivacaine, lidocaine, and fentanyl. Surgical procedures included inguinal herniorraphy, cholecystectomy, and appendectomy. The standardized mean difference in early pain scores favoured PVB: 0.85 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.12-1.58] at 4-6 h and 0.64 (95% CI 0.28-1.00) at 24 h. One study reported a reduced length of stay. Parental [odds ratio (OR) 5.12 (95% CI 2.59-10.1)] and surgeon [OR 6.05 (95% CI 2.25-16.3)] satisfaction were higher in those receiving a PVB. No major complications occurred with a PVB.PVB resulted in minimally improved pain scores for up to 24 h after surgery, reduced rescue analgesia requirements, and increased surgeon and parental satisfaction. PVB is a good alternative to caudal and ilioinguinal block in paediatric abdominal surgery.
Topics: Abdomen; Adolescent; Child; Child, Preschool; Humans; Nerve Block; Pain, Postoperative; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 28100519
DOI: 10.1093/bja/aew387 -
Journal of Orthopaedics Dec 2015Chondrolysis involves the breakdown of cartilage following arthroscopic surgery, most commonly affecting the glenohumeral joint.
BACKGROUND
Chondrolysis involves the breakdown of cartilage following arthroscopic surgery, most commonly affecting the glenohumeral joint.
METHODS
This review summarises all clinical and laboratory studies regarding local anaesthetic (LA) and its association with chondrolysis. We identified 289 papers, 41 of which met our inclusion criteria and were included in the final review.
RESULTS
Bupivacaine, lidocaine, ropivacaine and levobupivacaine are all toxic to cartilage. Intra-articular infusions confer a greater toxicity to cartilage than single injections.
CONCLUSIONS
Intra-articular LA pain pumps carry a high risk of chondrolysis and should be avoided. Further studies are indicated to assess long-term single exposure LA implications.
PubMed: 27047224
DOI: 10.1016/j.jor.2015.10.005