Postoperative analgesic effect of epidural neostigmine and plasma cortisol and IL-6 responses

The effect of anesthesia on the postoperative systemic inflammatory response in patients undergoing surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Surgical injury stimulates the systemic inflammatory response. The magnitude of the postoperative systemic inflammatory response has been shown to be significantly associated with short and long-term outcomes following surgery of varying severity. Different anesthetic techniques for surgery may have an impact on the postoperative systemic inflammatory response and on the rate of the postoperative infective complications.The aim of the present systematic review was to examine the relationship between perioperative anesthesia, the postoperative systemic inflammatory response and postoperative infective complications in patients undergoing surgery.

METHODS

This was carried out using PubMed and other established databases from 1987 up to March 2018. In particular, randomized controlled studies and systemic inflammation markers, interleukin 6 and C-reactive protein were examined.

RESULTS

Overall, 60 controlled, randomized clinical trials were included in the review. The mean or median values of both interleukin 6 and C-reactive protein were taken for each study and the mean value was calculated for each anesthetic group at sampling points of 12-24 and 24-72 hours for interleukin 6 and C-reactive protein respectively. When taking the magnitude of surgery into account, TIVA using propofol was significantly associated with a reduction in particular C-reactive protein (P = .04). However, there were no other specific anesthetic methods including general, regional and combined anesthetics that were associated with a reduction in either interleukin 6 or C-reactive protein.

CONCLUSION

There is some evidence that anesthetic regimens may reduce the magnitude of the postoperative systemic inflammatory response. However, the studies were heterogeneous and generally of low quality.Future, well conducted, adequately powered studies are required to clarify the effect of anesthesia on the postoperative systemic inflammatory response and infective complications.

NMDA Receptor Antagonists, Gabapentinoids, α-2 Agonists, and Dexamethasone and Other Non-Opioid Adjuvants: Do They Have a Role in Plastic Surgery?

BACKGROUND

Inadequate pain control and opioid-related adverse effects result in delayed patient recovery and discharge times. Adjuvants help to improve the quality of analgesia and decrease opioid consumption, consequently decreasing opioid-related effects, such as nausea and vomiting, sedation, ileus, and respiratory depression. We review the mechanisms and clinical evidence for nonopioid adjuvants.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Register were searched for meta-analyses, systematic reviews, and randomized, controlled trials that compared the adjuvants ketamine, gabapentin, pregabalin, dexmedetomidine, clonidine, and dexamethasone with placebo. Keywords used in the search included "plastic surgery," "reconstructive surgery," "opioid," "pain," "analgesia," and the names of each adjuvant. The references of included studies were searched for additional relevant studies.

RESULTS

Ketamine was found in 6 meta-analyses to have a significant reduction in opioid requirements and may reduce the hyperalgesia associated with opioids. This seems to be most beneficial in surgeries where high postoperative pain is expected. Multiple robust trials have demonstrated that the gabapentinoids and α-2 agonists significantly improve quality of analgesia and decrease opioid consumption. Two recent meta-analyses found that a single low-dose of dexamethasone used for postoperative nausea and vomiting prophylaxis may also improve postoperative analgesia. There is also emerging evidence for the use of low-dose naloxone, adenosine, and neuraxial neostigmine and acupuncture as part of a successful multimodal pain management regimen.

CONCLUSIONS

Although there is a lack of studies specifically focused in the plastic and reconstructive surgery patient population, the existing literature provides information about when the above adjuvants are likely to have the greatest impact.

The evolution of spinal/epidural neostigmine in clinical application: Thoughts after two decades

Since the first clinical application of analgesia following spinal anticholinesterase by 1940's, several clinical double-blind studies have been conducted to date, where intrathecal doses of neostigmine in humans ranged from 750 to 1 μg, due to side-effects. Conversely, epidural neostigmine has been evaluated in proportionally higher doses and represents an alternative, but still deserves more investigation concerning both acute and chronic pain, as it seems devoid of important side-effects.

Analysis of perioperative factors associated with increased cost following abdominal wall reconstruction (AWR)

BACKGROUND

Ventral hernias are a common, challenging, and expensive problem for both the general and reconstructive surgeons; therefore, the aim of this study is to critically assess perioperative factors related to cost in abdominal wall reconstructions (AWR).

METHODS

A retrospective review of AWR patients from 2007 and 2012 was performed. Analysis of perioperative factors associated with total cost of reconstruction was performed. Linear regression analyses were used to assess independent predictors of total cost.

RESULTS

134 consecutive AWR performed by a single surgeon over a 5-year period at an academic teaching center were included. The average total cost of AWR was $61,251 ± 55,624. Linear regression analysis demonstrated that diabetes (P = 0.026), increased American Society of Anesthesiologists score (P = 0.002), preoperative anemia (P = 0.001), and hernias derived from trauma (P = 0.015) were independently associated with added cost in AWR when controlling for confounding variables. In addition, patients requiring intra-abdominal procedures (P = 0.012) and those receiving an AWR using Acellular Dermal Matrix (P = 0.015) accrued significantly greater cost. Interestingly, preoperative placement of an epidural (P = 0.011) was independently associated with significant cost savings and reduced medical morbidity. Major surgical complications (P < 0.001) and length of stay (P < 0.001) were independently associated with increased cost following AWR.

CONCLUSION

We present a critical assessment of cost in AWR at a major academic teaching hospital and quantify the impact of reconstruction in the setting of medical morbidities and reconstructive complexities. The data from this study can be used to adjust reimbursement schemes and to critically assess the cost-benefit of performing AWR.

Efeitos da metadona ou do neostigmine, associados à lidocaína administrados pela via epidural em cães

Seis cães adultos, de raças e sexos variados, com peso de 13,3±3,4kg (média±DP), foram utilizados no estudo. Os animais foram tranqüilizados com acepromazina (0,1mg/kg, IV) e, após 30 minutos, foram aleatoriamente submetidos à anestesia epidural com um dos seguintes tratamentos: lidocaína 2% 0,25ml/kg (controle); neostigmine 0,01mg/kg+lidocaína (NEO); metadona 0,3mg/kg+lidocaína (MET). Todos os animais foram submetidos aos três tratamentos com intervalo mínimo de uma semana. Foram mensuradas as freqüências cardíaca (FC) e respiratória (FR), a pressão arterial sistólica (PAS), o tempo para a perda do reflexo interdigital, a duração e a altura do bloqueio sensitivo, durante um período de 90 minutos. Não houve diferença significativa entre os tratamentos nos valores de FC, PAS e FR, bem como na duração do bloqueio sensitivo e no tempo para a perda do reflexo interdigital. No grupo MET, houve diminuição de FC dos 30 aos 90 minutos em relação ao valor basal. Bloqueio sensitivo mais cranial também foi observado em MET. A associação de neostigmine ou metadona não prolongou o período hábil de anestesia epidural produzido pela lidocaína em cães. A metadona, mas não o neostigmine, parece estender mais cranialmente o bloqueio epidural pela lidocaína.

Use of neostigmine in the management of acute postoperative pain and labour pain: a review

Neostigmine is a parasympathomimetic agent that has been recently investigated for use as an adjunct analgesic agent in the perioperative and peripartum period. A number of studies have investigated the intrathecal, epidural, caudal and intra-articular routes of administration of this agent, as well as the addition of neostigmine to local anaesthetics used for brachial plexus block and intravenous regional anaesthesia. While the intrathecal administration of neostigmine produced useful analgesic effects in the postoperative period in some studies, the high incidence of adverse events, mainly nausea and vomiting, limit the clinical usefulness of this route of administration. Several studies investigated the postoperative analgesic effects of epidural neostigmine using a number of different regimens. Overall, this route of administration appeared to improve postoperative analgesia in most studies without increasing the incidence of adverse events, and merits further research. Neuraxial administration of neostigmine appears to be safe in the obstetric population, with no reported adverse effects in the mother or fetus. While intrathecal administration is limited by a high incidence of nausea and vomiting in this patient population, the epidural route appears more promising and requires further investigation. The addition of neostigmine to caudal local anaesthetics was associated with improved postoperative analgesia in a number of studies. A dose of 2 microg/kg proved to be effective in several studies but was associated with an increased incidence of vomiting in some studies. Intra-articular administration of neostigmine 500microg produced a useful analgesic effect in the postoperative period in several studies and was not associated with an increase in the incidence of adverse effects. Studies investigating the efficacy of adding neostigmine to the local anaesthetics used for brachial plexus block and intravenous regional anaesthesia reported conflicting results. Further studies are required to determine the place of the administration of neostigmine by these routes.