Anaesthesiologists versus surgeons, or regional anaesthesia versus local anaesthesia?

Rebound pain prevention after peripheral nerve block: A network meta-analysis comparing intravenous, perineural dexamethasone, and control

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Peripheral nerve blocks (PNBs) are widely used for postoperative analgesia, but rebound pain following block resolution poses a significant clinical challenge. Dexamethasone, administered either intravenously (IV) or perineurally, has shown promise in reducing rebound pain incidence, but the optimal route remains unclear. This network meta-analysis (NMA) aims to compare the effectiveness of different routes of dexamethasone administration, including IV, perineural, and control, in reducing the incidence of rebound pain following PNBs.

DESIGN

Network meta-analysis.

SETTING

Operating room, postoperative recovery area and ward.

PATIENTS

Seven randomized controlled trials involving 561 patients undergoing peripheral nerve block for postoperative pain management.

INTERVENTIONS

Intravenous and perineural dexamethasone compared to control for preventing rebound pain.

MEASUREMENTS

The primary outcome was the incidence of rebound pain. Secondary outcomes included median time to first analgesic request, rebound pain resolution time, difference in pain scores before and after PNB resolution, and nausea/vomiting.

MAIN RESULTS

Both IV and perineural dexamethasone significantly reduced the incidence of rebound pain following peripheral nerve blocks compared to the control group. IV dexamethasone ranked first based on P-score (OR, 0.13; 95 % CI, 0.07-0.23; P-score, 0.92). Secondary outcomes, including time to the first analgesic request, pain score difference, and nausea/vomiting, also favored both IV and perineural dexamethasone over the control group.

CONCLUSION

Both IV and perineural dexamethasone are preferred over no dexamethasone for preventing rebound pain after PNBs, with IV dexamethasone being the more effective route. Despite limitations, these findings provide valuable insights for clinical decision-making in postoperative pain management.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42024530943.

Comparison of spinal anesthesia and local anesthesia in percutaneous interlaminar endoscopic lumbar discectomy for L5/S1 disc herniation: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Interlaminar endoscopic lumbar discectomy (IELD) is a prevalent method for managing lumbar disc herniation. Local anesthesia (LA) is frequently employed during IELD, albeit with its merits and drawbacks. The spinal anesthesia (SA) represents a feasible anesthetic strategy for IELD; however, the availability of clinical research data is currently limited.

METHODS

The propensity score matching was conducted to ensure the comparability of the SA and LA groups. The outcome measures were operation time, intraoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain, need for adjuvant analgesia, intraoperative vital signs, blood loss, adverse surgical events, anesthesia-related complications, postoperative bed rest duration, VAS for pain at 2 h postoperatively, Oswestry Disability Index score (ODI), satisfaction with surgical efficacy, and willingness to undergo reoperation at 6 months postoperatively.

RESULTS

Fifty-six patients were assigned to each group. Significant differences were found between the groups regarding intraoperative VAS for pain, use of adjuvant analgesics, willingness to undergo reoperation, maximum intraoperative systolic blood pressure, and variability (P < 0.05). Compared to the LA group, the SA group had lower VAS for pain at 2 h postoperatively, a longer operation time, a longer duration of postoperative bedrest, and more anesthesia-related complications (P < 0.05). No significant intergroup differences were detected in intraoperative heart rate variability, blood loss, ODI, satisfaction with surgical efficacy, and surgery-related complications (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

SA as an alternative anesthesia for IELD surgery holds great promise, exhibiting superior efficacy compared to LA. However, it is crucial to meticulously evaluate the indications due to potential risks associated with this form of anesthesia.

Local anaesthetics risks perception: A web-based survey

Background

The use of local anaesthetics (LAs) is usually associated with few adverse effects, but local anaesthetic systemic toxicity (LAST) can result in serious harm and even death. However, practitioner awareness regarding this risk has been little studied.

Methods

This was a closed, web-based study carried out at two Swiss university hospitals using a fully automated questionnaire. The main objective was to evaluate LAST awareness and LA use among various medical practitioners. The secondary objective was to determine whether these physicians felt that a tool designed to compute maximum safe LA doses should be developed.

Results

The overall participation rate was 40.2 % and was higher among anaesthesiologists (154/249, 61.8 % vs 159/530, 30.0 %; P < .001). Anaesthesiologists identified the risk of LAST and the systems involved more frequently than non-anaesthesiologists (85.1 % vs 43.4 %, P < .001). After adjusting for years of clinical experience, age, country of diploma, frequency of LA use, clinical position and being an anaesthesiologist, the only significant associations were this latter factor (P < .001) and clinical position (P = .016 for fellows and P = .046 for consultants, respectively). Most respondents supported the development of a tool designed to compute maximum safe LA doses (251/313, 80.2 %) and particularly of a mobile app (190/251, 75.7 %).

Conclusions

LAST awareness is limited among practitioners who use LAs on a regular basis. Educational interventions should be created, and tools designed to help calculate maximum safe LA doses developed. The actual frequency of unsafe LA doses administration would also deserve further study.

Ultrasound-guided epidural anesthesia and sedation for open transvesical Cohen ureteric reimplantation surgery in 20 consecutive children: a prospective case series and proof-of-concept study

BACKGROUND

Epidural anesthesia is usually combined with general anesthesia (GA) for children undergoing sub-umbilical surgery and GA in children is associated with a potential for respiratory events. Aiming to reduce airway manipulation and the use of GA drugs, we designed a study of transvesical Cohen ureteteric reimplantion under epidural anesthesia in sedated, spontaneously breathing children.

METHODS

We enrolled 20 children (3-83 months, 6.3-25.0 kg) scheduled for open transvesical abdominal surgery with Pfannenstiel incision. Sedation was followed by ultrasound-guided epidural anesthesia. Increases in heart rate by > 15% and or patient movements upon skin incision were rated as block deficiencies. Intubation equipment for advanced airway management was kept on standby. The primary study endpoint was successful blockade, meaning that no sequential airway management was required for the spontaneous breathing patients during surgery. Secondary endpoints included any use of fentanyl/propofol intraoperatively and of postoperative analgesics in the recovery room.

RESULTS

All 20 blocks were successful, with no block deficiencies upon skin incision, no need for sequential airway management, and stable SpO2 levels (97-100%). Surgery took a median of 120.5 minutes (IQR: 89.3-136.5) and included one bolus of fentanyl in one patient 120 minutes into a protracted operation. No more systemic analgesia had to be provided in the recovery room.

CONCLUSIONS

Sedation and epidural anesthesia emerged as a useful alternative to GA from our consecutive case series.

Perioperative Opioid Administration

Opioids form an important component of general anesthesia and perioperative analgesia. Discharge opioid prescriptions are identified as a contributor for persistent opioid use and diversion. In parallel, there is increased enthusiasm to advocate opioid-free strategies, which include a combination of known analgesics and adjuvants, many of which are in the form of continuous infusions. This article critically reviews perioperative opioid use, especially in view of opioid-sparing versus opioid-free strategies. The data indicate that opioid-free strategies, however noble in their cause, do not fully acknowledge the limitations and gaps within the existing evidence and clinical practice considerations. Moreover, they do not allow analgesic titration based on patient needs; are unclear about optimal components and their role in different surgical settings and perioperative phases; and do not serve to decrease the risk of persistent opioid use, thereby distracting us from optimizing pain and minimizing realistic long-term harms.

Epidural analgesia for postoperative pain: Improving outcomes or adding risks?

Current evidence shows that the benefits of epidural analgesia (EA) are not as impressive as believed in the past, while the risks of adverse effects and serious complications are greater than previously estimated. There are many reasons for the decreasing role of epidural technique in clinical practice (table). Indeed, EA can cause harm and hinder early mobilization in enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programmes. Some ERAS interventions are complex, confusing, sometimes contradictory and apparently unimplementable. In spite of much hype and after almost 25 years, the originator of the concept has described the current status of ERAS as 'far from good'. Outpatient surgery setup has been a remarkable success for many major surgical procedures, and it predates ERAS and appears to be a simpler and better model for reducing postoperative morbidity and hospitalization times. Systematic reviews of comparative studies have shown that less invasive and safer but equally effective alternatives to EA are available for almost all major surgical procedures. These include: paravertebral block, peripheral nerve blocks, catheter wound infusion, periarticular local infiltration analgesia, preperitoneal catheters and transversus abdominis plane block. Increasingly, these non-EA methods are being used as surgeon-delivered regional analgesia (RA) techniques. This encouraging trend of active surgeon participation, with anaesthesiologist collaboration, will undoubtedly improve the decades-old twin problems of underused RA techniques and undertreated postoperative pain. The continued use of EA at any institution can only be justified by results from its own audits; however, regrettably only very few institutions perform such regular audits.