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

Contrasting Effects of Music Therapy and Aromatherapy on Perioperative Anxiety: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Music therapy and aromatherapy have been demonstrated effective for perioperative anxiety. However, the available studies have indicated discordant results about which adjunct treatment is better for perioperative anxiety. Therefore, we conducted this meta-analysis to explore the contrasting effects between them.

METHODS

Six electronic databases were searched for clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of music therapy compared with aromatherapy in alleviating perioperative anxiety. The primary outcome was the postintervention anxiety level. Secondary outcomes included differences in blood pressure and heart rate before and after the intervention as well as pain scores at intraoperative and postoperative time points. The study protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021249737).

RESULTS

Twelve studies (894 patients) were included. The anxiety level showed no statistically significant difference (SMD, 0.28; 95% CI: -0.12, 0.68; p = 0.17). The analysis of blood pressure and heart rate also did not identify statistically significant differences. Notably, the pain scores at the intraoperative time point suggested that aromatherapy was superior to music therapy (WMD, 0.29 cm; 95% CI: 0.05, 0.52; p = 0.02), while those at 4 h after surgery indicated the opposite results (WMD, -0.48 cm; 95% CI: -0.60, -0.36; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Low-to-moderate quality evidence suggests that music therapy and aromatherapy have similar potential to relieve perioperative anxiety. The potential data indicate that the two therapies have different benefits in intervention duration and age distribution. More direct high-quality comparisons are encouraged in the future to verify this point.

Einleitung

Musik- und Aromatherapie haben sich bei perioperativen Angstzuständen als wirksam erwiesen. Die verfügbaren Studien zeigten jedoch widersprüchliche Ergebnisse zur Frage, welche adjuvante Therapie bei perioperativen Angstzuständen besser ist. Daher führten wir die vorliegende Metaanalyse durch, um die unterschiedlichen Effekte der beiden Therapien zu untersuchen.

Methoden

Sechs (6) elektronische Datenbanken wurden nach klinischen Studien zur Wirksamkeit von Musiktherapie im Vergleich zur Aromatherapie bei der Linderung perioperativer Angstzustände durchsucht. Primäres Zielkriterium war das Angstniveau nach der Intervention. Die sekundären Zielkriterien umfassten die Unterschiede bei Blutdruck und Herzfrequenz vor und nach der Intervention sowie die Schmerz-Scores zu intra- und postoperativen Zeitpunkten. Das Studienprotokoll wurde auf PROSPERO (CRD42021249737) registriert.

Ergebnisse

Zwölf (12) Studien (894 Patienten) wurden eingeschlossen. Das Angstniveau zeigte keinen statistisch signifikanten Unterschied (SMD, 0,28; 95%-KI: −0,12, 0,68, p = 0,17) und auch die Analyse von Blutdruck und Herzfrequenz ergab keine statistisch signifikanten Unterschiede. Insbesondere die Schmerz-Scores zum intraoperativen Zeitpunkt sprachen dafür, dass die Aromatherapie gegenüber der Musiktherapie überlegen war (WMD, 0,29 cm; 95%-KI: 0,05, 0,52; p = 0,02), während die Werte 4 Stunden nach der Operation gegenteilige Ergebnisse zeigten (WMD, −0,48 cm; 95%-KI: −0,60, −0,36, p < 0,001).

Schlussfolgerung

Evidenzen von geringer bis mässiger Qualität deuten darauf hin, dass Musik- und Aromatherapie ein vergleichbares Potenzial bei der Linderung perioperativer Ängste besitzen. Die potenziellen Daten zeigen, dass die beiden Therapien unterschiedliche Vorteile hinsichtlich Interventionsdauer und Altersverteilung haben. Künftig sollten mehr direkte und qualitativ hochwertige Vergleiche durchgeführt werden, um diesen Aspekt zu überprüfen.

Peri-anal infiltration versus caudal block for multimodal analgesia in paediatric patients with Hirschsprung's disease undergoing transanal endorectal pull-through procedure: A randomised trial

Background and Aims

Transanal endorectal pull-through (TERPT) is a standard procedure for managing paediatric patients with Hirschsprung's disease (HD). This study aimed to evaluate peri-anal infiltration versus caudal block as a part of multimodal analgesia for paediatric patients with HD undergoing the TERPT procedure.

Methods

This randomised trial included 60 patients of both genders, aged 6 to 18 months who underwent the TERPT procedure under general anaesthesia. The patients were randomly assigned into two groups to receive either peri-anal infiltration or caudal block with 1 ml/kg bupivacaine 0.25% and dexmedetomidine 1 µg/kg in 0.5 ml normal saline. The primary outcome was the time to the first rescue analgesia. The secondary outcomes were the total consumption, the frequency of nalbuphine administration as rescue analgesia within 24 hours and the level of postoperative sedation.

Results

The time to first rescue analgesia was significantly shorter in the peri-anal infiltration group versus the caudal block group (median [interquartile range] 10 [7.5-12.5] h versus 16 [13.5-18.5] h, respectively, P = 0.008). The frequency of administration and the total dose of nalbuphine was significantly higher in the peri-anal infiltration group (P = 0.003 and 0.013, respectively). The sedation score was significantly higher in the caudal block group postoperatively.

Conclusion

For paediatric patients undergoing the TERPT procedure, peri-anal infiltration was less effective than caudal block in terms of the duration of postoperative analgesia. However, both techniques were comparable during the first 6 hours postoperatively.

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.

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.

A meta‐analysis showing the quantitative evidence base of perineural nalbuphine for wound pain from upper‐limb orthopaedic trauma surgery

The adjuvant effectiveness of nalbuphine in context of brachial plexus block (BPB) in patients undergoing upper-limb orthopaedic trauma surgery has remained uncertain. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the analgesic benefit of mixing nalbuphine into local anaesthetics in BPB for wound pain from upper-limb trauma surgery. Primary outcome was the duration of analgesia. Seventeen trials (1104 patients) were analysed. Patients receiving nalbuphine have an increased weighted mean difference (WMD) 95% confidence interval of the duration of analgesia by 186.91 minutes (133.67 to 240.16) (P < 0.001). Compared to placebo, nalbuphine shorten the onset time of sensory and motor block by WMD of 2.59 (1.27 to 3.92) and 3.06 minutes (1.65 to 4.48) (P < 0.001), respectively. Meanwhile, nalbuphine prolonged the durations of sensory and motor block (P < 0.001). Qualitative and quantitative synthesis revealed no differences with regard to the outcomes related to side-effects. There is moderate-quality evidence that the addition of nalbuphine to local anaesthetics for BPB in patients undergoing upper-limb orthopaedic trauma surgery significantly prolongs the duration of analgesia, while preserving a similar safety-profile compared with local anaesthetics alone. However, these benefits should be further weighed against nalbuphine-related neurological safety in future studies.

Efficacy and Safety of Lidocaine Patch in the Management of Acute Postoperative Wound Pain: A Comprehensive Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

OBJECTIVE

This study sought to quantify the pooled effects of lidocaine patch (LP) on postoperative pain and side-effects through a comprehensive review and meta-analysis.

APPROACH

The study followed PRISMA, AMSTAR and the Cochrane Collaboration. Randomized controlled trials s comparing LP with placebo were retrieved from five electronic databases. Primary outcome in the study was cumulative intravenous morphine equivalent consumption (mg) within 24 hours postoperatively.

RESULTS

Twelve trials comprising 617 patients were included in the final analysis. Primary result indicated that the analgesic effects LP were only statistical but not clinically significant of postoperative intravenous morphine consumption within 24 hours (mean difference, -4.61 mg; 95% CI, -8.09, -1.14). Interestingly, the results of subgroup and meta-regression analysis indicated that preoperative administration of LP had potential advantages in postoperative wound pain management. It is also worthwhile to mention that LP provided a clinically important benefit in rest pain scores within 24-hour postoperatively. Apart from these, other secondary outcome analysis did not uncover any particularly significant analgesic or safety advantages to LP. Finally, LP also does not increase the risk of any local anesthetic-related side effects.

INNOVATION

This systematic review and meta-analysis provides moderate-to-high quality evidence undermining the role of LP for management of acute postoperative wound pain following surgical procedures and the justification for the associated extra costs.

CONCLUSION

Taken together, the current evidence does not support LP as part of a routine multimodal analgesia strategy to alleviate early postoperative acute pain. However, further studies should explore the clinical value of preoperative administration and the long-term effect of LP.

Combined femoral and popliteal nerve block is superior to local periarticular infiltration anaesthesia for postoperative pain control after total knee arthroplasty

INTRODUCTION

After primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA), local periarticular infiltration anaesthesia (LIA) is a fast and safe method for postoperative pain control. Moreover, ultrasound-guided regional anaesthesia (USRA) with femoral and popliteal block is a standard procedure in perioperative care. Two analgesic regimens for TKA-LIA versus URSA with dexmedetomidine-were compared as an additive to ropivacaine. We hypothesised that the use of URSA provides a superior opioid sparing effect for TKA compared with LIA.

METHODS

Fifty patients (planned 188 participants; safety analysis was performed after examining the first 50 participants) were randomised. These patients received LIA into the knee capsule during surgery with 60 ml of ropivacaine 0.5% and 1 ml of dexmedetomidine (100 µg ml^-1) or two single-shot URSA blocks (femoral and popliteal block) before surgery with 15 ml of ropivacaine 0.5% and 0.5 ml of dexmedetomidine for each block. Postoperative opioid consumption in the first 48 h, pain assessment and complications were analysed.

RESULTS

In the safety analysis, there was a significantly higher need for opioids in the LIA group, with a median oral morphine equivalent of 42.0 [interquartile range (IQR) 23.5-57.0] mg versus 27.0 [IQR 0.0-33.5] mg (P = 0.022). Due to this finding, the study was terminated for ethical considerations according to the protocol.

CONCLUSION

This is the first study presenting data on LIA application in combination with dexmedetomidine. A superior opioid-sparing effect of URSA was observed when compared with LIA in TKA when dexmedetomidine is added to local anaesthetics. Also, a longer lasting opioid-sparing effect in the LIA group was observed when compared with the recently published literature; this difference could be attributed to the addition of dexmedetomidine. Therefore, multimodal analgesia regimens could be further improved when LIA or USRA techniques are combined with dexmedetomidine.

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.

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.

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.