Efficacy of dexmedetomidine as an adjuvant to local wound infiltration anaesthesia in abdominal surgery: A meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Efficacy of Pre-emptive Infiltration of Dexmedetomidine with a Local Anaesthetic on Postoperative Pain in Maxillofacial Trauma Management under General Anaesthesia: A Prospective Study

Introduction

Pre-emptive analgesia aims to reduce post-operative pain and the need for analgesics. Dexmedetomidine (DEX) is an alpha-2 adrenergic agonist with sedative and analgesic properties. The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of pre-emptive infiltration of DEX combined with local anaesthetic (2% lignocaine with adrenaline) in managing post-operative pain in maxillofacial trauma patients undergoing open reduction and internal fixation procedures, as compared to pre-emptive infiltration of placebo (saline) with the same local anaesthetic.

Materials and Methods

Forty-two participants of maxillofacial trauma with a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) score of more than 4 were included in this double-blinded randomised controlled trial. Group DL (Dexmedetomidine with local anaesthetic) received dexmedetomidine (DEX) with local anaesthesia while group PL (placebo with local anaesthetic) received placebo with local anaesthesia. Participants were evaluated for the time taken for the first rescue analgesic, total doses of fentanyl taken by the patient in the first 24 h, post-operative pain (VAS) at 6, 12, 16 and 24 h, post-operative side effects and analysed.

Results

The DL group had a significantly longer time to first rescue analgesic compared to the PL group. Surgeons in the DL group reported higher satisfaction and better surgical field visibility. Post-operative VAS scores were lower in the DL group at 6 and 12 h, with a median score of 1 at 16 and 24 h.

Discussion

Pre-emptive DEX infiltration is effective in reducing post-operative pain and opioid consumption in maxillofacial trauma cases undergoing open reduction and internal fixation. This approach can enhance patient comfort and improve surgical outcomes without significant risks.

Effect of dexmedetomidine combined with local infiltration analgesia on postoperative wound complications in patients with total knee arthroplasty: A meta-analysis

Dexmedetomidine has been demonstrated to be effective in the management of pain in total knee replacement (TKA). Nevertheless, a combination of a local anaesthetic and a dose of dexmedetomidine might be a better choice for post-operative pain management of TKA. The aim of this research is to determine if the combination of a local anaesthetic with dexmedetomidine during a knee replacement operation can decrease the post-operation pain. Furthermore, the effectiveness and security of dexmedetomidine combined with topical anaesthetic were evaluated for the management of post-operative TKA. Based on the research results, the author made a research on the basis of four big databases. The Cochrane Handbook on Intervention Systems Evaluation has also evaluated the quality of the literature. Seven randomized controlled trials have been established from this. It was found that the combination of local anaesthesia and dexmedetomidine had a greater effect on postoperative pain in 4 h (mean difference [MD], -0.9; 95% CI, -1.71, -0.09; p = 0.03), 8 h (MD, -0.52; 95% CI, -0.66, -0.38; p < 0.0001), 12 h (MD, -0.72; 95% CI, -1.04, -0.40; p < 0.0001), 24 h (MD, -0.49; 95% CI, -0.83, -0.14; p = 0.006), 48 h (MD, -0.51; 95% CI, -0.92, -0.11; p = 0.01). Nevertheless, because of the limited number of randomized controlled trials covered by this meta-analysis, caution should be exercised with regard to data treatment. More high quality research will be required to confirm the results.

Efficacy and Safety of Methylprednisolone for Lung Surgery: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

INTRODUCTION

The administration of methylprednisolone (MP) is a component of perioperative multimodal analgesia that mitigates the potentially deleterious effects of postoperative pain and opioid consumption. However, a systematic evaluation of the efficacy and safety of MP is lacking. The present systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to quantify the potential clinical benefits and risks of perioperative MP in lung surgery.

METHODS

We searched seven electronic databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing MP with placebo. Coprimary outcomes were rest pain scores, dynamic pain scores, and cumulative morphine equivalent consumption within 24 h postoperatively.

RESULTS

A total of 11 trials including 643 participants were selected for our meta-analysis. The results demonstrated that the MP group had a significant difference in coprimary outcomes (rest pain scores, dynamic pain scores, and cumulative morphine equivalent consumption) compared with the placebo group; nevertheless, the improvement was not clinically meaningful based on minimum clinically important differences (MCID). Notably, MP administration reduced serum levels of interleukin (IL)-6 at 6 h (weighted mean difference -20.49 pg/mL; 95% CI -29.94 to -11.04), and decreased the incidence rate of acute lung injury (rate ratio 0.18; 95% CI 0.03-0.98) and cognitive dysfunction (rate ratio 0.43; 95% CI 0.21-0.88) compared with the placebo group.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that the administration of MP contributed to an insignificant relief in acute postoperative pain for lung surgery in a clinical setting. Future studies should focus on exploring the role of MP in reducing pulmonary and surgical-related complications after lung surgery.

CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER

PROSPERO registration number CRD42022314224.

Dexmedetomidine Prolongs the Analgesic Effects of Periarticular Infiltration Analgesia following Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Prospective, Double-blind, Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Periarticular infiltration analgesia (PIA) is widely administered to relieve postoperative pain following total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The present study aimed to evaluate the effect of prolonging the analgesic duration by adding dexmedetomidine to PIA for pain management after TKA.

METHODS

One hundred and sixteen patients were randomly allocated into 3 groups based on PIA regimens including Group R (ropivacaine), Group E (ropivacaine plus epinephrine), and Group D (ropivacaine plus dexmedetomidine). The primary outcomes were postoperative visual analog scale (VAS) scores, time until the administration of first rescue analgesia, and opioid consumption. The secondary outcomes included postoperative inflammatory biomarkers and functional recovery. The tertiary outcomes were postoperative complications and adverse events.

RESULTS

The patients in Group D had significantly lower resting VAS scores than those in Groups R and E at 6 hours after surgery. Group R showed the higher pain scores at rest and motion than Groups D and E 12 hours postoperatively. The use of dexmedetomidine or epinephrine postponed the time until the administration of first rescue analgesia and led to lower opioid consumption in the first 24 hours after TKA. The levels of IL-8 and TNF-α in Groups D and E were significantly lower than those in Group R on postoperative Day 3. Furthermore, no significant differences were observed in functional recovery, postoperative complications, or adverse events among the three groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Adding dexmedetomidine as an adjuvant to PIA could potentiate and prolong the analgesic effect in the early stage following TKA without increasing the risk of adverse events.

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

Objective: Although the use of dexamethasone as an adjunct agent is associated with alleviating pain and prolonging analgesic duration in local wound infiltration (LWI), efficacy and safety of dexamethasone infiltration have not been fully explored. The study sought to quantify the pooled effects of dexamethasone infiltration on postoperative pain, analgesic consumption, and side effects through a review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Approach: RCTs comparing dexamethasone + LWI with LWI alone were retrieved from seven electronic databases. Co-primary outcomes were rest pain scores and cumulative morphine equivalent consumption within 24 h postoperatively. The study followed PRISMA, AMSTAR, and the Cochrane Collaboration. Results: Eight trials comprising 609 patients were included in the final analysis. Results indicated that dexamethasone infiltration effects were only statistical but not clinically significant at individual time points of rest pain and patient satisfaction scores. Notably, the effect of dexamethasone infiltration therapy on other pain-related parameters, including cumulative morphine consumption (mean difference, -9.05 mg; 95% CI: -22.47 to 4.37), was not significantly different compared with the control group. Analysis showed no significant differences in safety indicators between the two groups. The overall quality of evidence was high to very low. Innovation: Although statistically significant effects of dexamethasone infiltration were observed for some outcomes of postoperative wound pain, the overall benefits were below the expected minimal clinically important difference. Conclusions: In summary, the current evidence does not support routine clinical use of dexamethasone in LWI. However, further studies should explore the clinical value of preemptive analgesia and safety of a combination of dexamethasone with ropivacaine for LWI.

Analgesic Efficacy and Safety of Local Infiltration Following Lumbar Decompression Surgery: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

This systematic review aims to appraise available clinical evidence on the efficacy and safety of wound infiltration with adjuvants to local anesthetics (LAs) for pain control after lumbar spine surgery. A database search was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) pertinent to wound infiltration with analgesics or miscellaneous drugs adjunctive to LAs compared with sole LAs or placebo. The outcomes of interest were postoperative rescue analgesic consumption, pain intensity, time to first analgesic request, and the occurrence of adverse events. Twelve double-blind RCTs enrolling 925 patients were selected for qualitative analysis. Most studies were of moderate-to-good methodological quality. Dexmedetomidine reduced analgesic requirements and pain intensity within 24 h postoperatively, while prolonged pain relief was reported by one RCT involving adjunctive clonidine. Data on local magnesium seem promising yet difficult to interpret. No clear analgesic superiority could be attributed to steroids. Τramadol co-infiltration was equally effective as sole tramadol but superior to LAs. No serious adverse events were reported. Due to methodological inconsistencies and lack of robust data, no definite conclusions could be drawn on the analgesic effect of local infiltrates in patients undergoing lumbar surgery. The probable positive analgesic efficacy of adjunctive dexmedetomidine and magnesium needs further evaluation.

The Analgesic Benefits of Ketorolac to Local Anesthetic Wound Infiltration Is Statistically Significant But Clinically Unimportant: A Comprehensive Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objective: Even though ketorolac-infiltration is said to provide superior postoperative analgesic benefits in different surgical procedures, its safety and efficacy remain to be validated because of the lack of high-quality evidence. We aimed to summarize the efficacy and safety of ketorolac-infiltration based on published randomized-controlled trials (RCTs). Approach: This work followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, assessing the methodological quality of systematic reviews and the Cochrane Collaboration recommendations. We searched for RCTs evaluating the efficacy of ketorolac-infiltration in adults in the PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, Chinese databases, and Google Scholar. The two co-primary outcomes of this meta-analysis were rescue analgesic consumption in the 24-h postoperative period and rest pain scores. Results: Twelve trials (761 patients) were analyzed. Ketorolac-infiltration provided a clinically unimportant benefit in morphine consumption (mean difference, -2.81 mg; 95% confidence interval [CI], -5.11 to -0.50; p = 0.02; moderate-quality evidence). Low-to-moderate quality evidence supported a brief (2-6 h), clinically subtle, but statistically consistent effect of surgical site ketorolac-infiltration in reducing wound pain at rest. High-quality evidence supported shorter hospital stays for surgical patients receiving local ketorolac-infiltration when compared to controls (mean difference, -0.12 days; 95% CI, -0.17 to -0.08; p < 0.00001). Further, ketorolac-infiltration does not improve any opioid-related side effects. Innovation: Ketorolac-infiltration provides statistically significant but clinically unimportant benefits for improving postoperative wound pain. Conclusion: Overall, despite the fact that current moderate-to-high quality of evidence does not support routine using of ketorolac as an adjuvant to local anesthetic for wound infiltration, these findings underscore the importance of optimizing agents and sustained delivery parameters in postoperative local anesthetic practice. Clinical Trials.gov ID: CRD42021229095.

Updates on Wound Infiltration Use for Postoperative Pain Management: A Narrative Review

Local anesthetic wound infiltration (WI) provides anesthesia for minor surgical procedures and improves postoperative analgesia as part of multimodal analgesia after general or regional anesthesia. Although pre-incisional block is preferable, in practice WI is usually done at the end of surgery. WI performed as a continuous modality reduces analgesics, prolongs the duration of analgesia, and enhances the patient’s mobilization in some cases. WI benefits are documented in open abdominal surgeries (Caesarean section, colorectal surgery, abdominal hysterectomy, herniorrhaphy), laparoscopic cholecystectomy, oncological breast surgeries, laminectomy, hallux valgus surgery, and radical prostatectomy. Surgical site infiltration requires knowledge of anatomy and the pain origin for a procedure, systematic extensive infiltration of local anesthetic in various tissue planes under direct visualization before wound closure or subcutaneously along the incision. Because the incidence of local anesthetic systemic toxicity is 11% after subcutaneous WI, appropriate local anesthetic dosing is crucial. The risk of wound infection is related to the infection incidence after each particular surgery. For WI to fully meet patient and physician expectations, mastery of the technique, patient education, appropriate local anesthetic dosing and management of the surgical wound with “aseptic, non-touch” technique are needed.

Effects of Dexmedetomidine as an Analgesic Adjuvant for Surgery of Femur Fracture: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Patients who undergo surgery of femur fracture suffer the excruciating pain. Dexmedetomidine (DEX) is a unique α2-adrenergic receptor agonist with sedative and analgesic properties, whose efficacy and safety are still unclear for surgery of femur fracture. Randomized controlled trials comparing the effects of addition of DEX to general or local anesthesia in surgery of femur fracture were searched from MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library database. Patients who received DEX infusion had a significant longer time to rescue analgesia compared with those without DEX coadministration. DEX treatment seemed to reduce the visual analog score; however, the significance did not reach any statistical difference. DEX as an analgesic adjuvant did not reduce the onset of sensory block time, shorten the time to achieve maximum sensory block level, and provide a longer duration of sensory block. The difference in mean sedation scores between 2 groups was not statistically significant. As for adverse effects, DEX therapy significantly increased the rate of hypotension. In conclusion, dexmedetomidine as a local anesthetic adjuvant in femur fracture surgery had a longer duration of rescue analgesia. However, the incidence of hypotension was markedly increased in these patients. It was worth noting that the evidence was of low to moderate quality.

Does Inhaled Methoxyflurane Implement Fast and Efficient Pain Management in Trauma Patients? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Introduction

Evidence on the use of inhaled methoxyflurane in the management of trauma pain is conflicting and obfuscated. This study aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of inhaled methoxyflurane for trauma pain on the basis of published randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

Methods

RCTs assessing the efficacy of methoxyflurane in adults or adolescents with acute trauma pain published in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar were searched. The control groups were those that received placebo or standard analgesic treatment (SAT). The primary outcome was the change from baseline in pain scores during the first 30 min of treatment. Secondary outcomes included time to first pain relief, the proportion of patients experiencing pain relief, rescue analgesia rate, the treatment satisfaction of patients and investigators, and the methoxyflurane-related treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs).

Results

A total of nine RCTs (1806 patients) were identified. Results revealed that methoxyflurane provided a clinically unimportant benefit by improving the mean difference of change from baseline in pain intensity (from − 0.44 to − 1.23 cm, p < 0.001) at various time points within the first 20 min compared to control treatment. Besides, methoxyflurane decreased the time of onset of pain relief (mean difference − 5.29 min; 95% CI − 6.97 to − 3.62) and the proportion of patients who needed rescue analgesic medication (risk ratio 1.41; 95% CI 1.17–1.70) despite it increasing the risk of non-severe TEAEs (risk ratio 3.09; 95% CI 1.72–5.57). Notably, the benefit of almost all secondary pain-related outcomes was rendered clinically nonsignificant between methoxyflurane and SAT strata besides the time of onset of pain relief. The quality of evidence was low or very low in all outcomes.

Conclusions

In emergency situations without effective therapy, this systematic review and meta-analysis provides low-quality evidence that methoxyflurane can be used as a rapid-acting and effective treatment for acute trauma pain, although its utilization is associated a risk of non-severe TEAEs. However, the current evidence does not support the notion that inhaled methoxyflurane offered superior analgesic efficacy to SAT.

Clinical Trial Number

PROSPERO registration number CRD42020223000.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40122-021-00258-9.

Nalbuphine Versus Ketorolac as an Adjuvant to Local Wound Infiltration Anesthesia in Open Colorectal Surgery: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Study

INTRODUCTION

Adding adjuvants to local wound infiltration (LWI) provides long analgesic duration with fewer adverse effects. We aimed to compare the clinical effects of nalbuphine and ketorolac as an adjuvant to LWI in patients undergoing open colorectal cancer surgery.

METHOD

A total of 126 ASA I-III patients aged ≥ 18 years who were scheduled for open colorectal cancer surgery were included. Patients were randomly assigned to receive LWI using 10 mL 0.75% ropivacaine, with 20 mL normal saline (group R), 10 mg nalbuphine in 1 mL (group RN), or 25 mg ketorolac in 0.8 mL (group RK). Analgesia duration was the primary outcome. The total 48-h postoperative morphine-equivalent consumption and additional rescue analgesia rates were recorded as key secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

Among 126 patients randomized, 124 completed the trial. The duration until the first press of the analgesia pump was significantly shorter in group R (median: 320.0 min) compared with group RN (median: 829.5 min) and group RK (median: 820.0 min) (P < 0.001). The median difference in morphine consumption was 113.0 mg for group R vs. group RN (P < 0.001), and 115.5 mg for group R vs. group RK (P < 0.001). The proportion of patients using additional morphine within the first day after surgery in group R showed a higher relative risk (RR) compared with group RN (RR, 3.89; P = 0.001) and group RK (RR, 3.17; P = 0.001). There were no apparent differences between the RN and RK groups in any outcomes, whether in adjusted or unadjusted analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients undergoing open colorectal cancer surgery, both nalbuphine and ketorolac infiltration achieved equally prolonged duration of analgesia and reduced morphine consumption compared with ropivacaine alone after surgery, suggesting that the equivalent analgesic dose of nalbuphine and ketorolac as local anesthetic adjuvants in LWI could have a similar analgesic effect.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ChiCTR1800019209.

Dexmedetomidine as an adjuvant for patients undergoing breast cancer surgery: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The goal of this study was to comprehensively evaluate the analgesic and antiemetic effects of adjuvant dexmedetomidine (DEX) for breast cancer surgery using a meta-analysis.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched to collect the studies that performed randomized controlled trials. The effect size was estimated by odd ratio (OR) or standardized mean difference (SMD). Statistical analysis was performed using the STATA 13.0 software.

RESULTS

Twelve published studies involving 396 DEX treatment patients and 395 patients with control treatment were included. Pooled analysis showed that the use of DEX significantly prolonged the time to first request of analgesia (SMD = 1.67), decreased the postoperative requirement for tramadol (SMD = -0.65) and morphine (total: SMD = -2.23; patient-controlled analgesia: SMD = -1.45) as well as intraoperative requirement for fentanyl (SMD = -1.60), and lower the pain score at 1 (SMD = -0.30), 2 (SMD = -1.45), 4 (SMD = -2.36), 6 (SMD = -0.63), 8 (SMD = -2.47), 12 (SMD = -0.81), 24 (SMD = -1.78), 36 (SMD = -0.92), and 48 (SMD = -0.80) hours postoperatively compared with the control group. Furthermore, the risks to develop postoperative nausea/vomiting (PONV) (OR = 0.38) and vomiting (OR = 0.54) were significantly decreased in the DEX group compared with the control group. The pain relief at early time point (2, 6, 12, 24 hours postoperatively) and the decrease in the incidence of PONV were especially obvious for the general anesthesia subgroup (P < .05) relative to local anesthesia subgroup (P >.05).

CONCLUSION

DEX may be a favorable anesthetic adjuvant in breast cancer surgery, which could lower postoperative pain and the risk to develop PONV. DEX should be combined especially for the patients undergoing general anesthesia.

Efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine as an adjuvant to local wound infiltration anaesthesia: A meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis of 23 randomised controlled trials

To further identify the real efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine as an adjuvant to local wound infiltration anaesthesia, we conducted this meta‐analysis. The systematic search strategy was performed using PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Chinese databases. As a result, a total of 23 RCTs (1445 patients) were included. Patients receiving dexmedetomidine combined with local anaesthetics had a lower rescue analgesia rate [risk ratio (RR): 0.48; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.36‐0.65] and lower rescue analgesic consumption [weighted mean difference (WMD): −10.80 mg; 95%CI: −13.28 to −8.31 mg] than patients receiving local anaesthetics alone. The dexmedetomidine‐related adverse reactions included bradycardia (RR: 1.33; 95%CI: 0.32‐5.56) and hypotension (RR: 3.00; 95%CI: 0.49‐18.42). In addition, the time to first analgesic request (WMD: 296.16 minutes; 95%CI: 165.69 minutes ~ 426.63 minutes), incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and pain scores at 4 hours postoperatively were also significantly lower in patients receiving dexmedetomidine combined with local anaesthetics. This meta‐analysis demonstrated that the use of dexmedetomidine as an adjuvant to wound infiltration is effective for reducing the rescue analgesia rate, rescue analgesic consumption and PONV. In addition, limited evidence shows that dexmedetomidine can prolong postoperative analgesia for approximately 5 hours. Further investigations on dexmedetomidine‐related adverse reactions and the dose–response effect of dexmedetomidine in wound infiltration are warranted.

Efficacy of dexmedetomidine as an adjuvant to local wound infiltration anaesthesia in abdominal surgery: A meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

To assess the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine (DEX) as an adjuvant to local wound infiltration anaesthesia in abdominal surgery, we conducted this meta-analysis. First, the systematic search strategy was performed on PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library and five randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving 294 patients were included. Then, the outcome data were extracted from the studies and their effect sizes were calculated using Review Manager 5. As a result, the addition of DEX significantly reduced visual analogy scores at 6 hours after surgery (mean difference = -0.53[-0.82, -0.25], P < .001), 12 hours after surgery (mean difference = -0.39 [-0.73, -0.05]; P = .03), and 24 hours after surgery (mean difference = -0.20 [-0.29, -0.11], P < .001) and reduced total analgesic consumption within 24 hours after surgery (mean difference = -4.92 [-9.00, -0.84]; P = .02) compared with placebo groups. However, there was no difference in the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (risk ratio = 0.68 [0.41, 1.14]; P = .14). In summary, DEX as a local anaesthetic adjuvant added for local wound infiltration anaesthesia in abdominal surgery could reduce visual analogy scores and postoperative analgesic consumption without changing incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting.