Preoperative paravertebral blocks for the management of acute pain following mastectomy: a cost-effectiveness analysis

Paravertebral Blocks in Tissue Expander Breast Reconstruction: Propensity-Matched Analysis of Opioid Consumption and Patient Outcomes

BACKGROUND

The paravertebral block (PVB) is an adjunctive perioperative pain control method for patients undergoing breast reconstruction that may improve perioperative pain control and reduce narcotic use. This study determined the efficacy of preoperative PVBs for perioperative pain management in patients undergoing tissue expander breast reconstruction.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed of patients who underwent tissue expander breast reconstruction from December of 2017 to September of 2019. Two patients with PVBs were matched using propensity scoring to one no-block patient. Perioperative analgesic use, pain severity scores on days 2 to 10 after discharge, and BREAST-Q Physical Well-Being scores before surgery and at 2 weeks, 6 weeks, and 3 months after surgery were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

The propensity-matched cohort consisted of 471 patients (314 PVB and 157 no block). The PVB group used significantly fewer morphine milligram equivalents than the no-block group (53.7 versus 69.8; P < 0.001). Average daily postoperative pain severity scores were comparable, with a maximum difference of 0.3 points on a 0-point to 4-point scale. BREAST-Q Physical Well-Being scores were significantly higher for the PVB group than the no-block group at 6 weeks after surgery (60.6 versus 51.0; P = 0.015) but did not differ significantly at 2 weeks or 3 months after surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

PVBs may help reduce perioperative opioid requirements but did not reduce pain scores after discharge when used as part of an expander-based reconstruction perioperative pain management protocol. Continued research should examine additional or alternative regional block procedures as well as financial cost and potential long-term impact of PVBs.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, III.

The Cost Utility of Virtual Surgical Planning and Computer-Assisted Design/Computer-Assisted Manufacturing in Mandible Reconstruction Using the Free Fibula Osteocutaneous Flap

BACKGROUND

 The use of virtual surgical planning and computer-assisted design and computer-assisted manufacturing (CAD/CAM) has become widespread for mandible reconstruction with the free fibula flap. However, the cost utility of this technology remains unknown.

METHODS

 The authors used a decision tree model to evaluate the cost utility, from the perspective of a hospital or insurer, of mandible reconstruction using CAD/CAM relative to the conventional (non-CAD/CAM) technique for the free fibula flap. Health state probabilities were obtained from a published meta-analysis. Costs were estimated using 2018 Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services data. Overall expected cost and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were assessed using a Monte Carlo simulation and sensitivity analyses. Cost effectiveness was defined as an incremental cost utility ratio (ICUR) less than the empirically accepted willingness-to-pay value of $50,000 per QALY.

RESULTS

 Although CAD/CAM reconstruction had a higher expected cost compared with the conventional technique ($36,487 vs. $26,086), the expected QALYs were higher (17.25 vs. 16.93), resulting in an ICUR = $32,503/QALY; therefore, the use of CAD/CAM in free fibula flap mandible reconstruction was cost-effective relative to conventional technique. Monte Carlo sensitivity analysis confirmed CAD/CAM's superior cost utility, demonstrating that it was the preferred and more cost-effective option in the majority of simulations. Sensitivity analyses also illustrated that CAD/CAM remains cost effective at an amount less than $42,903 or flap loss rate less than 4.5%.

CONCLUSION

 This cost utility analysis suggests that mandible reconstruction with the free fibula osteocutaneous flap using CAD/CAM is more cost effective than the conventional technique.

Impact of Ultrasound-Guided Deep Serratus Anterior Plane Block Combined With Dexmedetomidine as an Adjuvant to Ropivacaine Inpatient Quality of Recovery Scores Undergoing Modified Radical Mastectomy: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Background

Breast cancer has overtaken lung cancer as the most commonly diagnosed malignancy and is the leading cause of cancer-related death in women. Surgery is the only possible cure for breast cancer, and the incidence of acute postoperative pain (APP) is high in breast surgery. Previous reports suggested that ultrasound-guided deep serratus anterior plane block (dSAPB) provided effective blockade to relieve pain after modified radical mastectomy for breast cancer. In fact, despite the long-acting local anesthetic agents used, the patient’s pain cannot completely be eliminated due to the short duration of anesthesia. Dexmedetomidine as an adjunct to local anesthetics can prolong peripheral nerve block duration. However, no study has investigated the role of dSAPB with dexmedetomidine in the quality of recovery scores undergoing modified radical mastectomy. Thus, this study was conducted aiming at this aspect.

Material and Methods

This single-center, double-blind, randomized clinical trial was conducted at Bethune International Peace Hospital. A total of 88 participants of elective modified radical mastectomy were enrolled from May and November 2021. Ultrasound-guided dSAPB combined with 30 ml of 0.375% ropivacaine or 30 ml of 0.375% ropivacaine with dexmedetomidine (1 μg/kg) was administrated before anesthesia at the fourth to fifth ribs of the axillary midline. The primary outcome was quality of recovery, measured 24 h postoperatively using the QoR-15. Secondary outcomes were the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) scores at rest and movement at 1, 6, 12, 24, and 48 h after surgery, 48 h sufentanil consumption postoperatively, the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), length of post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) stay, dizziness, delirium, SAPB-related adverse events, and patient’s satisfaction with pain management.

Results

Among the 88 participants, 8 did not meet the inclusion criteria; the other 80 were randomized to receive dSAPB combined with ropivacaine (Group R, N=40) and dSAPB combined with ropivacaine plus DEX (Group RD, N=40), of which a total of 7 (4 in Group R and 3 in Group RD) were excluded due to protocol deviation. Eventually,73 participants (36 in Group R and 37 in Group RD) were included for final analysis, with age (SD, years, 54.08[6.28] vs. 54.62[7.44], p=0.740), body mass index (BMI) (SD, 27.96[1.67] vs. 27.57[2.38], p=0.428), and median preoperative global QoR-15 score (interquartile range (IQR), 127[123.25–131] vs. 126[121–130], p=0.662). The median postoperative global QoR-15 score (IQR, 107[103–112] vs. 109.5[107–114], p=0.016), VAS score at rest at 12th hour (IQR, 1[1–2] vs. 1[1–2], p=0.033), VAS score in movement at 12th hour (IQR, 2[1–3] vs. 2[1–3], p=0.014) and at 24th hour (IQR, 3[2–3] vs. 3[2–3], p=0.040), and median sufentanil rescues consumption (IQR, 14[12–17 vs. 14[12–15], p=0.022] of Group RD were significantly lower than those of the Group R. Patient satisfaction score (SD, 8.28[0.70] vs. 8.62[0.59], p=0.024) of Group RD were significantly higher than those of the Group R.

Conclusion

The ultrasound-guided dSAPB combined with dexmedetomidine plus ropivacaine may improve the QoR-15 in patients undergoing modified radical mastectomy and indicates that it may be a useful intervention to aid recovery following breast cancer surgery. Furthermore, participants in the ropivacaine with DEX group met the superior pain relief in the early postoperative period, reduced postoperative cumulative opioid consumption, increased patient satisfaction, and no increase in the incidence of complications.

PROSPECT guideline for oncological breast surgery: a systematic review and procedure-specific postoperative pain management recommendations

Analgesic protocols used to treat pain after breast surgery vary significantly. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the available literature on this topic and develop recommendations for optimal pain management after oncological breast surgery. A systematic review using preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis guidance with procedure-specific postoperative pain management (PROSPECT) methodology was undertaken. Randomised controlled trials assessing postoperative pain using analgesic, anaesthetic or surgical interventions were identified. Seven hundred and forty-nine studies were found, of which 53 randomised controlled trials and nine meta-analyses met the inclusion criteria and were included in this review. Quantitative analysis suggests that dexamethasone and gabapentin reduced postoperative pain. The use of paravertebral blocks also reduced postoperative pain scores, analgesia consumption and the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting. Intra-operative opioid requirements were documented to be lower when a pectoral nerves block was performed, which also reduced postoperative pain scores and opioid consumption. We recommend basic analgesics (i.e. paracetamol and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs) administered pre-operatively or intra-operatively and continued postoperatively. In addition, pre-operative gabapentin and dexamethasone are also recommended. In major breast surgery, a regional anaesthetic technique such as paravertebral block or pectoral nerves block and/or local anaesthetic wound infiltration may be considered for additional pain relief. Paravertebral block may be continued postoperatively using catheter techniques. Opioids should be reserved as rescue analgesics in the postoperative period. Research is needed to evaluate the role of novel regional analgesic techniques such as erector spinae plane or retrolaminar plane blocks combined with basic analgesics in an enhanced recovery setting.

Cost-effectiveness of forced air warming during sedation in the cardiac catheterisation laboratory

AIM

The aim of this study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of forced air warming (FAW) during sedation in a cardiac catheterisation laboratory.

BACKGROUND

Forced air warming improves thermal comfort in comparison with standard care. It is not known whether the extra costs required for FAW are good value.

DESIGN

Cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a randomized controlled trial conducted in 2016-2017.

METHODS

A cost-effectiveness analysis was undertaken using Monte Carlo simulations from input distributions to estimate costs and effects associated with using FAW to reduce risk of thermal discomfort for patients receiving sedation in a cardiac catheterisation laboratory. A range of willingness to pay threshold values were tested with results plotted on a cost-effectiveness acceptability curve. Costs were calculated in Australian currency ($AUD).

RESULTS

Estimated total costs were $5.21 (SD 3.26) higher per patient for FAW in comparison to standard care. Estimated probability of success (rating of thermal comfort) was 0.16 (0.06) higher for FAW. Forced air warming becomes more likely to result in a net benefit than standard care at a willingness to pay threshold of $34.

CONCLUSION

Forced air warming could be considered cost-effective for procedures performed with sedation in a cardiac catheterisation laboratory if the extra cost of an incremental gain in thermal comfort is less than the decision maker's willingness to pay for it. Therefore, those responsible for decision-making regarding use of FAW in the cardiac catheterisation laboratory can use results of our model to decide if it represents good value for their organisation.