Paravertebral Blocks for Same-Day Breast Surgery

Endoscopic Primary Breast Augmentation With Loco-Regional Anesthesia: Preliminary Experience of 200 Consecutive Patients

Background

Breast augmentation with implants recorded over 1.6 billion procedures globally in 2022. To reduce surgical trauma and complications and facilitate a fast recovery, we employ an ultrasound-guided local-regional anesthesia technique, the creation of a partial submuscular implant pocket by direct endoscopic visualization and minimal skin access on the mammary fold.

Objectives

The aim in this study is to evaluate whether breast augmentation performed in endoscopy under local-regional anesthesia reduces postoperative recovery time, reduces complications, and increases patient satisfaction.

Methods

Patients provided their consent through a signed form. We set strict inclusion and exclusion criteria. We prospectively evaluated postoperative pain and recovery times, the rate of complications, and patient satisfaction at 12 months postsurgery.

Results

Between January 2021 and September 2022, 200 patients met the inclusion criteria. The average operation time was 54.2 min. Patients were discharged from the hospital within 2 to 3 h. Eighty-nine percent of patients expressed great satisfaction with the result. None of the patients experienced postsurgical complications.

Conclusions

In our initial study, we showed that endoscopic breast augmentation conducted under localized anesthesia is safe. It allows for quick recovery postsurgery and swift resumption of everyday activities. The overall complication risk is less than what has been reported in scientific studies for the classic dual-plane technique. Moreover, this approach yields excellent patient satisfaction. Additional prospective and randomized studies will be required to enhance the scientific validity of this technique. Moreover, a larger patient cohort will be essential to stratify the risks associated with varying prosthetic volumes.

Level of Evidence 4

Single and double injection paravertebral block comparison in reduction mammaplasty cases: a randomized controlled study

BACKGROUND

This study compares the analgesic effects and dermatomal blockade distributions of single and double injection bilateral thoracic paravertebral block (TPVB) techniques in patients undergoing reduction mammaplasty.

METHODS

After obtaining ethics committee approval, 60 patients scheduled for bilateral reduction mammaplasty were included in the study. Preoperatively, the patients received one of single (Group S: T3-T4) or double (Group D: T2-T3 & T4-T5) injection bilateral TPVBs using bupivacaine 0.375% 20 ml per side. All patients were operated under general anesthesia. The T3-T6 dermatomal blockade distributions on the midclavicular line were followed by pin-prick test for 30 min preoperatively and 48 h postoperatively. All patients received paracetamol 1 g when numeric rating scale (NRS) pain score was ≥ 4, and also tramadol 1 mg/kg when NRS was ≥ 4 again after 1 h. The primary endpoint was NRS pain scores at postoperative 12th h. The secondary endpoints were dermatomal blockade distributions and NRS scores through the postoperative first 48 h, time until first pain and the analgesic consumption on days 1 and 2.

RESULTS

Fifty-two patients completed the study. The NRS pain scores at 12th h were similar (right side: P = 0.100, left side: P = 0.096). The remaining NRS scores and other parameters were also comparable within the groups (P ≥ 0.05). Only single injection TPVB application time was shorter (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The single injection TPVB technique provided sufficient dermatomal distribution and analgesic efficacy with the advantages of being faster and less invasive.

Safety of Continuous Erector Spinae Catheters in Chest Trauma: A Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

The erector spinae block is an efficacious analgesic option for the management of rib fracture--related pain. Despite there being minimal published data specifically addressing the safety profile of this block, many societies have made statements regarding its safety and its use as an alternative to traditional regional anesthesia techniques in patients at risk of complications. The primary aim of this study was to characterize the safety profile of erector spinae plane block catheters by determining the incidence of early complications. The secondary aim of this study was to characterize the incidence of late adverse events, as well as the erector spinae plane block catheter failure rate.

METHODS

We analyzed electronic medical record data of patients who had an erector spinae plane block catheter inserted for the management of rib fractures between November 2017 and September 2020. To assess early adverse events, data collection included hypotension, hypoxemia, local anesthetic systemic toxicity, and pneumothorax thought to be associated with erector spinae plane block catheter insertion. Late complications included catheter site infection and catheter site hematoma.

RESULTS

A total of 224 patients received 244 continuous erector spinae catheters during the study period. After insertion of the erector spinae, there were no immediate complications such as hypotension, hypoxia, local anesthetic toxicity, or pneumothorax. Of all blocks inserted, 7.7% were removed due to catheter failure (8.4 per 100 catheters; 95% confidence interval [CI], 5.1-13.9 per 100 catheters). This resulted in a failure rate of 1.9 per 1000 catheter days (95% CI, 1.1-6.7 catheter days). Late complications included 2 erythematous catheter sites and 2 small hematomas not requiring intervention. The incidence of a minor late complication was 16.7 per 1000 catheters (95% CI, 6.1-45.5 per 1000 catheters).

CONCLUSIONS

This study supports the statements made by regional anesthesia societies regarding the safety of the erector spinae plane block. Based on the results presented in this population of trauma patients, the erector spinae plane block catheter is a low-risk analgesic technique that may be performed in the presence of abnormal coagulation status or systemic infection.

Outpatient breast-conserving surgery for breast cancer: Use of local and intravenous anesthesia and/or sedation may reduce recurrence and improve survival

The use of general anesthesia (GA) with inhalational anesthetics for breast cancer surgery may be associated with breast cancer recurrence and increased mortality due to the immunosuppressive effects of these drugs. Less-immunosuppressive anesthetic techniques may reduce breast cancer recurrence. We evaluated the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of outpatient breast-conserving surgery (BCS) for breast cancer in a breast clinic in terms of the anesthetic technique used, complications occurring, recurrence, and survival. Methods: The sample comprised 456 consecutive patients with stage 0–III breast cancer who underwent BCS/axillary lymph node (ALN) management using local and intravenous anesthesia and/or sedation between May 2008 and January 2020. Most patients received adjuvant chemotherapy and/or endocrine therapy and radiotherapy after surgery. Patient outcomes were evaluated retrospectively. Results: All patients recovered and were discharged after resting for 3–4 h postoperatively. No procedure-related severe complication or death occurred. Sixty-four complications (14.0%) were observed: 14 wound infections, 17 hematomas, and 33 axillary lymphoceles. The median follow-up period was 2259 days (range, 9–4190 days), during which disease recurrence was observed in 25 (5.4%) patients. The overall survival and breast cancer–specific survival rates were 92.3% and 94.7%, respectively. Conclusions: Outpatient surgery for breast cancer involving BCS and ALN management under local and intravenous anesthesia and/or sedation can be performed safely, without serious complication or death. Less-immunosuppressive anesthetic techniques with spontaneous breathing may reduce the recurrence of breast cancer and improve survival relative to GA.

•

Outpatient surgery for breast cancer involving breast-conserving surgery (BCS) and axillary lymph node (ALN) management under local and intravenous anesthesia and/or sedation can be performed safely.

•

Less-immunosuppressive anesthetic techniques with spontaneous breathing may reduce the recurrence of breast cancer and improve survival compared with general anesthesia.

Dexamethasone Dose and Early Postoperative Recovery after Mastectomy

Background

Pain and nausea are the most common challenges in postoperative recovery after mastectomy. Preventive measures include multimodal analgesia with preoperative glucocorticoid. The aim of this study was to investigate whether 24 mg of preoperative dexamethasone was superior to 8 mg on early recovery after mastectomy in addition to a simple analgesic protocol.

Methods

In a randomized, double-blind trial, patients 18 yr of age or older having mastectomy were randomized 1:1 to 24 mg or 8 mg dexamethasone, and all received a standardized anesthetic and surgical protocol with preoperative acetaminophen, total intravenous anesthesia, and local anesthetic wound infiltration. The primary endpoint was number of patients transferred to the postanesthesia care unit according to standardized discharge criteria (modified Aldrete score). Secondary endpoints included pain and nausea at extubation, transfer from the operating room and upon arrival at the ward, length of stay, seroma occurrence, and wound infections.

Results

One hundred thirty patients (65 in each group) were included and analyzed for the primary outcome. Twenty-three (35%) in each group met the primary outcome, without significant differences in standardized discharge scores (odds ratio, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.49 to 2.05], P &gt; 0.999). More patients had seroma requiring drainage in the 24 mg versus 8 mg group, 94% versus 81%, respectively (odds ratio, 3.53 [95% CI, 1.07 to 11.6], P = 0.030). Median pain scores were low at all measured time points, numeric rating scale less than or equal to 2 versus less than or equal to 1 in the 24 mg versus 8 mg group, respectively. Six patients in each group (9%) experienced nausea at any time during hospital stay (P &gt; 0.999). Length of stay was median 11 and 9.2 h in the 24 and 8 mg group, respectively (P = 0.217).

Conclusions

The authors found no evidence of 24 mg versus 8 mg of dexamethasone affecting the primary outcome regarding immediate recovery after mastectomy. The authors observed a short length of stay and low pain scores despite a simple analgesic protocol.

Editor’s Perspective

What We Already Know about This Topic

What This Article Tells Us That Is New

THE ROLE OF PARAVERTEBRAL BLOCKS IN AMBULATORY SURGERY: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Ambulatory surgery often involves surgical procedures on the thorax, abdomen and limbs, which can be associated with substantial postoperative pain. The aim of this narrative review is to provide an analysis of the effectiveness of paravertebral block (PVB) alone or in combination with general anaesthesia, in this setting, with an emphasis on satisfactory postoperative analgesia in comparison to other modalities. We have conducted a search of current medical literature written in English through PubMed, Google Scholar and Ovid Medline®. Peer-reviewed professional articles, review articles, retrospective and prospective studies, case reports and case series were systematically searched for during the time period between November 2003 and February 2019. The literature used for the purpose of creating this review showed that utilisation of paravertebral block either alone or in combination with general anaesthesia, has a positive effect on satisfactory analgesia in ambulatory surgery. With a multimodal analgesic approach of PVB and other techniques of anaesthesia and analgesia there is a reduction in postoperative opioid consumption, fewer side effects, lower pain scores, decreased mortality, earlier mobilisation of patients and reduced hospital stay.