Lower-Dose Mepivacaine Plus Fentanyl May Improve Spinal Anesthesia for Knee Arthroscopy

Mepivacaine Versus Bupivacaine in Adult Surgical Patients: A Meta-analysis, Trial Sequential Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

PURPOSE

Evidence supporting the choice between mepivacaine and bupivacaine is inconclusive. This meta-analysis aims to determine whether mepivacaine can reach a similar effect to bupivacaine after surgeries.

DESIGN

A meta-analysis, trial sequential analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

METHODS

RCTs were identified in PubMed, EMBASE (Ovid), Medline (Ovid), and Cochrane Library using a controlled vocabulary (MeSH) and keywords. There were no date and language restrictions. We strictly included RCTs comparing mepivacaine with bupivacaine. The primary outcome was motor function recovery time. Secondary outcomes included postoperative analgesic requirement, transient neurologic symptoms (TNS), pain score at 24 hours, length of stay (LOS), duration of analgesia, complications, and patient satisfaction. A trial sequential analysis (TSA) was performed for motor function recovery time, postoperative analgesic requirement, and TNS.

FINDINGS

Seven RCTs with a total of 672 patients were included. Return of motor function was quicker in patients who received mepivacaine than in those who received bupivacaine (weighted mean differences [WMD] = -2.23 minutes; 95% confidence intervals [CI], -3.58 to -0.88; P = .02; I² = 97.08%; TSA adjusted CI -17.52 to -10.9). Postoperative analgesic requirement was significantly more with mepivacaine (risk ratio [RR] = 3.23; 95% CI, 1.37-7.62; P = .01; I² = 55.11%; TSA adjusted CI 5.73-63.27). Duration of analgesia (WMD = -8.83 hours; 95% CI, -11.75 to -7.90; P < .001; I² = 0%) and LOS (WMD = -3.95 hours; 95% CI, -4.83 to -3.07; P < .001; I² = 0%) in group mepivacaine was significantly shorter compared with bupivacaine. There were no differences for TNS (RR = 3.90; 95% CI, 0.94-16.22; P = .062; I² = 72.23%), postoperative pain score (standard mean differences [SMD] = 0; 95% CI, -0.10 to 0.10; P = .972; I² = 0%), complications (RR = 1; 95% CI, 0.70-1.43; P = .998; I² = 0%), and satisfaction (RR = 0.97; 95% CI, 0.85-1.11; P = .40; I² = 45%) between bupivacaine and mepivacaine.

CONCLUSIONS

Mepivacaine appears to yield a faster return of motor function and shorter LOS compared with bupivacaine. and may be more popular in short-stay and outpatient surgery. However, the results of TSA indicate that more high-quality trials are needed to confirm the true effects.

Mepivacaine vs Bupivacaine Spinal Anesthesia in Total Hip Arthroplasty at an Ambulatory Surgery Center

BACKGROUND

Mepivacaine spinal anesthetic may facilitate more rapid postoperative recovery in joint arthroplasty than bupivacaine. This study compared recovery, pain, and complications between the 2 anesthetics in anterior-approach total hip arthroplasty (THA) at a free-standing ambulatory surgery center (ASC).

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study of 282 consecutive patients with mean age 55.7 ± 8.8 years and body mass index 30.6 ± 5.3 who underwent THA at an ASC from November 2018 to July 2020 compares mepivacaine (n = 141) vs bupivacaine (n = 141) spinal anesthesia, a transition made in March 2019. The main outcomes were length of stay in the postoperative unit (post acute care unit) prior to same-day discharge (SDD), time to controlled void, and ambulation. Secondarily, postoperative pain scores (0-10) with morphine equivalents were required and any postoperative complications were compared.

RESULTS

Mepivacaine decreased mean post acute care unit stay (4.0 vs 5.7 hours, P < .001), time to void (3.1 vs 4.9 hours, P < .001), and ambulation (3.2 vs 4.5 hours, P < .001). No patients needed urinary catheterization or overnight stay. Two patients in the bupivacaine group had transient neurologic symptoms, consisting of foot drop and spinal headache, compared to none with mepivacaine (P = .498). Mepivacaine patients had increased postoperative pain at 2 hours (1.7 vs 0.9, P < .001), at discharge (1.1 vs 0.5, P = .004), and morphine equivalent doses received (7.8 vs 3.7 mg, P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Mepivacaine spinal anesthesia for anterior-approach THA safely facilitated more rapid SDD from the ASC through decreased times to controlled void and ambulation with only minor increase in pain when compared to bupivacaine.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III - Retrospective comparative cohort study.

The efficacy of spinal anaesthesia with fentanyl supplementation for arthroscopic knee surgery: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies

INTRODUCTION

The efficacy of spinal anaesthesia with fentanyl supplementation for arthroscopic knee surgery remains controversial. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore the influence of fentanyl supplementation for arthroscopic knee surgery.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, EBSCO and Cochrane Library databases through May 2019 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the efficacy and safety of fentanyl supplementation for arthroscopic knee surgery. This meta-analysis is performed using the random-effects model.

RESULTS

Five RCTs are included in the meta-analysis. Overall, compared with the control group for knee arthroscopy, fentanyl supplementation is associated with decreased time for sensory block regression to S1 (mean difference (MD) = -47.38; 95% confidence interval (CI) = -56.74 to -38.02; p < 0.00001), first ambulation (MD = -41.65; 95% CI = -65.11 to -18.19; p = 0.0005), first urination (MD = -23.45; 95% CI = -32.16 to -14.74; p < 0.00001) and hospital discharge (MD = -29.39; 95% CI = -44.73 to -14.06; p = 0.0002) but has no substantial influence on onset time of anaesthesia (MD = 0.50; 95% CI = -1.71 to 2.70; p = 0.66), duration for motor blockade (MD = -42.56; 95% CI = -119.18 to 34.07; p = 0.28), pruritus (risk ratio (RR) = 2.17; 95% CI = 0.28 to 16.90; p = 0.46) or nausea (RR = 0.42; 95% CI = 0.10 to 1.81; p = 0.25).

CONCLUSIONS

Fentanyl supplementation benefits postoperative recovery after knee arthroscopy.

The efficacy of intra-articular fentanyl supplementation for knee arthroscopy: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies

INTRODUCTION

The efficacy of intra-articular fentanyl supplementation for pain control after knee arthroscopy remains controversial. We conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore the influence of intra-articular fentanyl supplementation for pain intensity after arthroscopic knee surgery.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, EMbase, Web of Science, EBSCO, and Cochrane Library databases through May 2019 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the efficacy and safety of intra-articular fentanyl supplementation for arthroscopic knee surgery. This meta-analysis is performed using the random-effects model.

RESULTS

Four RCTs are included in the meta-analysis. Overall, compared with control group after knee arthroscopy, intra-articular fentanyl supplementation is associated with reduced pain scores at 1 h (standard mean difference (Std MD) = -3.50; 95% confidence interval (CI) = -5.68 to -1.32; p = 0.002), 2 h (Std MD = -4.73; 95% CI = -8.75 to -0.71; p = 0.02), and 8 h (Std MD = -5.02; 95% CI = -9.73 to -0.30; p = 0.04) but shows no substantial impact on pain scores at 4 h (Std MD = -3.94; 95% CI = -7.93 to 0.05; p = 0.05) or the supplementary analgesia (risk ratio = 0.56; 95% CI = 0.09-3.59; p = 0.54).

CONCLUSIONS

Intra-articular fentanyl supplementation does benefit in pain control after knee arthroscopy.

Time of return of neurologic function after spinal anesthesia for total knee arthroplasty: mepivacaine vs bupivacaine in a randomized controlled trial

Background

Mepivacaine as an intermediate-length spinal anesthetic for rapid recovery in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has not been fully described. We compared spinal mepivacaine vs bupivacaine for postoperative neurologic function in patients undergoing primary TKA.

Methods

Thirty-two patients undergoing primary TKA were enrolled. Primary outcome measure was return of motor and sensory function. Secondary outcome measures included assessment of urinary function, pain via visual analog scale (VAS) scores, opioid usage, distance walked and pain with physical therapy, time to discharge readiness, and complications.

Results

Patients with mepivacaine spinal anesthetic had faster return of sensory function (164 ± 38.6 vs 212 ± 54.2 minutes, P = .015), return of motor function (153 ± 47.4 vs 200 ± 45.2 minutes, P = .025), and time to straight leg raise (148 ± 43.5 vs 194 ± 50.8 minutes, P = .023). The mepivacaine group experienced significantly fewer episodes of urinary retention and shorter time to urination (344 ± 154.4 vs 416 ± 96.3 minutes, P = .039). Patients exhibited slightly higher VAS pain scores in the postanesthesia care unit (1.0 ± 1.7 vs 2.7 ± 2.3, P = .046) with no difference in opioid consumption. There were no differences in VAS scores or opioid use on the inpatient ward. Patients achieved discharge readiness 71 minutes faster in the mepivacaine group. There was no need to convert to general anesthesia or transient nerve symptoms in either group.

Conclusions

Patients undergoing TKA with mepivacaine spinal anesthetic had a reliably more rapid neurologic recovery after TKA compared to bupivacaine.

Spinal sensory and motor blockade by intrathecal doxylamine and triprolidine in rats

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this experiment was mainly to examine the effects of intrathecally injected doxylamine and triprolidine, two antihistamine drugs spinal motor and sensory functions.

METHODS

After intrathecally injecting the rats with five different doses, the dose-response curves of spinal sensory and motor block with doxylamine and triprolidine were constructed. In comparison with the local anaesthetic mepivacaine, the quality and duration of spinal anaesthesia with doxylamine or triprolidine were conducted.

KEY FINDINGS

Doxylamine, mepivacaine and triprolidine elicited spinal motor and sensory (nociception and proprioception) blockades in a dose-dependent fashion. On the ED₅₀ (50% effective dose) basis, the rank order of drug potency was triprolidine > mepivacaine > doxylamine (P < 0.05) at provoking spinal motor, proprioceptive and nociceptive blockades. On the equianaesthetic doses (ED₂₅ , ED₅₀ and ED₇₅ ), the duration of spinal anaesthesia with doxylamine was longer (P < 0.01) than that with mepivacaine or triprolidine. Moreover, doxylamine or triprolidine displayed greater potency (ED₅₀ ) (P < 0.05) and duration (P < 0.05) of sensory block over motor block.

CONCLUSIONS

Doxylamine or triprolidine produces a dose-dependent effect of spinal motor and sensory block. Triprolidine with a better nociception-selective action over motor block has a better potency than mepivacaine or doxylamine. Doxylamine and triprolidine produce longer durations than mepivacaine.