Dexamethasone Does Not Provide Additional Clinical Analgesia Effect to Local Wound Infiltration: A Comprehensive Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Pre-emptive coinfiltration of dexamethasone palmitate emulsion with ropivacaine for postoperative pain in patients undergoing major spine surgery: a study protocol for a prospective, randomised controlled, multicentre trial

INTRODUCTION

Patients undergoing major spine surgery usually experience moderate-to-severe postoperative pain. It has been shown that dexamethasone as an adjunct to local anaesthesia (LA) infiltration presented a superior analgesic benefit compared with LA alone in various types of surgeries. However, a recent meta-analysis reported that the overall benefits of dexamethasone infiltration were marginal. Dexamethasone palmitate (DXP) emulsion is a targeted liposteroid. Compared with dexamethasone, DXP has a stronger anti-inflammatory effect, longer duration of action and fewer adverse effects. We hypothesised that the additive analgesic effects of DXP on local incisional infiltration in major spine surgery may have better postoperative analgesic effect, compared with local anaesthetic alone. However, no study has evaluated this so far. The purpose of this trial is to determine whether pre-emptive coinfiltration of DXP emulsion and ropivacaine at surgical site incision will further reduce postoperative opioid requirements and pain scores after spine surgery than that with ropivacaine alone.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is a prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded endpoint, multicentre study. 124 patients scheduled for elective laminoplasty or laminectomy with no more than three levels will be randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio into two groups: the intervention group will receive local incision site infiltration with ropivacaine plus DXP; the control group will receive infiltration with ropivacaine alone. All participants will complete a 3 months follow-up. The primary outcome will be the cumulative sufentanil consumption within 24 hours after surgery. The secondary outcomes will include further analgesia outcome assessments, steroid-related side effects and other complications, within the 3 months follow-up period.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study protocol has been approved by the Institutional Review Board of Beijing Tiantan Hospital (KY-2019-112-02-3). All participants will provide a written informed consent. The results will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT05693467.

A Meta-Analysis Showing the Quantitative Evidence Base of Preemptive Pregabalin for Postoperative Pain from Cancer-Related Surgery

Background and Objectives: As an adjunct to postoperative multimodal analgesic regimens, pregabalin has been reported in reducing postoperative acute pain and opioid consumption. However, there is only a small amount of evidence for preemptive pregabalin in patients undergoing cancer-related surgery. This systematic review was conducted to integrate high-quality evidence to evaluate the preemptive analgesic effects of pregabalin in cancer-related surgery. Materials and Methods: Seven electronic databases were searched in a combination of subject terms and free words. Efficacy and safety of preemptive pregabalin on postoperative pain for cancer-related surgery were evaluated by assessing resting and dynamic pain scores postoperatively, cumulative morphine equivalent consumption, time to first analgesic request, hemodynamic parameters, and the safety indicators. Results: Thirteen trials were incorporated for quantitative synthesis. The pooled results showed administration of pregabalin preoperatively is clinically significant for improving resting (weighted mean difference (WMD), -1.53 cm; 95% CI, -2.30 to -0.77) and dynamic (WMD, -1.16 cm; 95% CI, -2.22 to -0.11) pain severity scores at 2 h postoperatively and prolonging time to first analgesic request (WMD, 2.28 h; 95% CI, 0.79 to 3.77) in cancer-related surgery. Preemptive pregabalin was also statistically effective in some other pain indicators but would increase the risk of pregabalin-related side effects after surgery. Conclusions: Our findings do not support the administration of pregabalin in doses larger than 300 mg when put in cancer-related surgery. Taken together, more high-quality research particularly focused on the optimal dosages and timing of pregabalin in cancer-related surgery is needed in the future to establish stronger evidence for therapeutic effects.

The effect of liposomal bupivacaine for surgical wound infiltration: A meta‐analysis of randomised controlled trials

Liposomal bupivacaine (LB) has consistently been considered a potential analgesic for surgical wound infiltration. However, the evidence of its analgesic effectiveness remains unclear. In this meta-analysis, we attempted to identify the potential clinical role of LB wound infiltration in different surgical procedures. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing LB with non-liposomal local anaesthetics and placebos were retrieved from six electronic databases. The primary outcome was cumulative morphine equivalent consumption within 24, 48, and 72 hours after surgery. Approximately 2659 patients from 22 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Compared to the control, LB-wound infiltration did not reduce the postoperative morphine consumption at 24 hours (weighted mean difference [WMD], -0.60 mg; 97.5% confidence interval [CI], -2.78 to 1.59 mg; P = 0.54), 48 hours (WMD, -1.00 mg; 97.5% CI, -3.23 to 1.24; P = 0.32) or 72 hours (WMD, 0.50 mg; 97.5% CI, -0.67 to 1.67; P = 0.33). Similarly, secondary outcome analysis did not reveal any additional benefits of LB in any other pain-related outcomes. LB was not associated with any adverse effects. Overall, LB does not appear to improve the postoperative analgesic, rehabilitation, or safety outcomes. Current evidence does not support the routine use of LB for wound infiltration following surgical procedures.