Addition of dexamethasone to local infiltration analgesia in elective total hip arthroplasty: a double-blind, randomized control trial

Effects of a Modified Long-Acting Cocktail on Analgesia and Enhanced Recovery After Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Double-Blinded Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

We compared the efficacy and safety of a modified cocktail for postoperative analgesia and early functional rehabilitation in patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA).

METHODS

Magnesium sulfate and sodium bicarbonate were added to a cocktail of ropivacaine, epinephrine, and dexamethasone. Primary outcome measures were visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores at various intervals after surgery, morphine consumption for rescue analgesia after surgery, and time to first rescue analgesia. Secondary outcomes were hip function after surgery, daily walking distance, quadriceps muscle strength, and the incidence of postoperative adverse reactions.

RESULTS

Morphine consumption was significantly lower in the modified cocktail group than in the control group in the first 24 hours after surgery (6.2 ± 6.0 versus 14.2 ± 6.4 mg, P < .001), as was total morphine consumption (10.0 ± 8.6 versus 19.2 ± 10.1 mg, P < .001). The duration of the first rescue analgesia was significantly prolonged (23.7 ± 10.3 versus 11.9 ± 5.8 mg, P < .001). Morphine consumption was also reduced in the magnesium sulfate and sodium bicarbonate groups over a 24-hour period compared to the control group (P < .001). The modified cocktail group had significantly lower resting VAS pain scores than the control group within 24 hours after surgery (P < .050). The VAS pain scores during movement within 12 hours after surgery were also lower (P < .050). The experimental groups showed better hip range of motion (P < .050) and longer walking distance (P < .050) on the first postoperative day, and levels of inflammatory markers were significantly reduced. The incidence of postoperative adverse reactions was similar among the 4 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The modified cocktail with a new adjuvant can prolong the duration of postoperative analgesia, reduce the dosage of rescue analgesics, and accelerate early postoperative functional recovery in patients undergoing THA.

Dexamethasone as additive of local infiltration analgesia reduces opioids consumption after simultaneous bilateral total hip or knee arthroplasty: a randomized controlled double-blind trial

PURPOSE

A randomized controlled double-blind trial was conducted to evaluate the effects of adding dexamethasone to the local infiltration analgesia (LIA) mixture on frequency of patient controlled analgesia (PCA) and opioids consumption after simultaneous bilateral total hip or knee arthroplasty (THA or TKA).

METHODS

108 patients who received simultaneous bilateral THA or TKA were randomly divided into dexamethasone group and normal saline (NS) group. The main difference between two groups was whether or not dexamethasone was added to the LIA mixture. The main outcome was the cumulative consumption of opioids within 24 h. The secondary outcome were the total cumulative consumption of opioids during postoperative hospitalization, consumption of opioids drug for rescue analgesia, frequency of PCA, postoperative Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), and complications.

RESULTS

Cumulative consumption of opioids in the 24 h was similar between two groups (P = 0.17). Total cumulative consumption of opioids in the dexamethasone group during postoperative hospitalization was significantly lower (P = 0.03). No significant difference in the consumption of opioids drug for rescue analgesia between two groups within 24 h, while the frequency of PCA was significantly different (P = 0.04). VAS of dexamethasone group and NS group were similar during postoperative hospitalization, while the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in dexamethasone group was lower than that in NS group.

CONCLUSIONS

Adding dexamethasone to LIA in the simultaneous bilateral THA or TKA can effectively reduce the total cumulative consumption of opioids and the frequency of PCA, as well as reduce the incidence of PONV. Trial Registration The trial has been registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (Registration Number: ChiCTR2100042551, Date: 23/01/2021).

Efficacy of Ultrasound-Guided Pericapsular Nerve Group (PENG) Block Combined With Local Infiltration Analgesia on Postoperative Pain After Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Prospective, Double-Blind, Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

This study examined whether pericapsular nerve group (PENG) block combined with local infiltration analgesia (LIA) could improve pain management and functional recovery after total hip arthroplasty.

METHODS

All patients were randomly assigned to receive PENG block combined with LIA (PENG group) or sham PENG block and LIA (Sham group). The primary outcome was cumulative morphine consumption within 24 hours after surgery. Secondary outcomes were pain scores on a visual analog scale (VAS); time to first rescue analgesia; cumulative morphine consumption during hospitalization; intraoperative consumption of opioids; postoperative recovery; and postoperative complications.

RESULTS

PENG patients consumed significantly less morphine within the first 24 hours and throughout hospitalization and smaller amounts of intraoperative opioids. There were significantly lower pain scores at rest and during motion within 24 hours in PENG patients. PENG patients took significantly longer until the first rescue analgesia and showed significantly better postoperative rehabilitation. However, the absolute change in morphine consumption and VAS scores did not exceed the reported minimal clinically important differences (morphine consumption: 10 mg; VAS scores: 1.5 at rest and 1.8 during movement). The two groups showed no difference in quadriceps muscle strength and postoperative complications.

CONCLUSION

PENG block combined with LIA could improve postoperative pain relief, reduce opioid use, and enhance recovery in total hip arthroplasty patients, without weakening the quadriceps muscle strength. This work justifies further trials to examine the safety and efficacy of this block and to explore maximal effective volume of local anesthetic for motor-sparing PENG block.

Comparison of periarticular multidrug injection versus epidural catheter in 55 patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty: A prospective randomized controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Epidural catheter (EC) and periarticular multidrug injection (PMDI) are widely performed for reducing total hip arthroplasty (THA) postoperative pain. However, the more effective analgesic technique between the two is unclear. Thus, we aimed to answer the following questions: (1) does PMDI contribute to less postoperative pain than EC? (2) is there any difference in side-effect occurrence between the methods? (3) does PMDI provide better functional recovery than EC? (4) is there any difference in inflammatory parameters between the methods?

HYPOTHESIS

PMDI would reduce postoperative pain and side effects, provide better functional recovery, and contribute to lower inflammation compared with EC.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This single-center, randomized controlled trial was conducted from 2017 to 2019 and enrolled 55 patients randomly allocated into two groups (28 patients: PMDI, 27 patients: EC). The primary outcome was evaluated using the pain visual analogue scale (VAS). The secondary outcomes were narcotic consumption, side effects, hip range of motion (ROM), ratio of patients performing the straight leg raise (SLR) on postoperative day (POD) 1, the day the patient started using a walker and cane, and inflammatory parameters (white blood cell [WBC], and C-reactive protein [CRP]). Paired t-tests and Fisher's exact test were used for comparisons.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in the pain VAS scores between groups. The EC group experienced significantly more side effects than the PMDI group (p<0.01). ROM of the PMDI group on POD 3 was significantly better than the EC group (p<0.05). Furthermore, more patients in the PMDI group could perform SLR than those in the EC group on POD 1 (p=0.01). On POD 1, the WBC count was significantly higher (p<0.01) in the PMDI group, whereas CRP levels were significantly lower in the PMDI group (p<0.05) and remained lower than the EC group on POD 3 (p<0.01).

DISCUSSION

The patients in the PMDI and EC groups had comparable postoperative pain. Those in the PMDI group had lower side effects. Functional recovery was comparable between the patients in the PMDI and EC groups. Compared to the EC group, the PMDI group had higher WBC count and lower CRP levels.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

I; Prospective randomized controlled trial.

Pre-Emptive Incision-Site Infiltration with Ropivacaine Plus Dexamethasone for Postoperative Pain After Supratentorial Craniotomy: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial

Background

Incision-site infiltration with local anesthetics prevents pain on incision site, but pain relief is limited to the first few postoperative hours. Dexamethasone as an adjuvant to local infiltration successfully achieves better postoperative pain relief; however, this has not been studied in craniotomy patients yet.

Study Design and Methods

This is a prospective, single-center, blinded, randomized, controlled trial included patients aged between 18 and 64 years, ASA physical status of I–II, scheduled for elective supratentorial tumor craniotomy under general anesthesia. We screened patients for enrollment from April 4, 2019 through August 15, 2019. The final study visit of the last patient was conducted on February 13, 2020. We randomly assigned eligible participants (1:1) to either the dexamethasone group who received incision-site infiltration of 0.5% ropivacaine plus 0.033% dexamethasone (N=70) or the control group who received 0.5% ropivacaine alone (N=70). Primary outcome was the cumulative sufentanil consumption (μg) within 48 hours postoperatively. Primary analysis was performed based on the modified intention-to-treat (MITT) principle.

Results

Baseline characteristics were similar between the groups (p>0.05). Sufentanil consumption during the first 48 hours postoperatively was 29.0 (10.7) μg in the dexamethasone group and 38.3 (13.7) μg in the control group (mean difference −9.3, 95% CI −13.4 to −5.1; p<0.001). There was no serious adverse effect directly associated with incision-site infiltration or local dexamethasone use.

Conclusion

The addition of dexamethasone to pre-emptive incision-site infiltration with the local anesthetic can reduce about 27% of opioids consumption and the postoperative pain scores within 72 hours after craniotomy.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.Gov (NCT03618264).

Addition of dexamethasone to local infiltration analgesia in elective total knee arthroplasty: double-blind, randomized control trial

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Total knee arthroplasty is associated with significant pain, and effective analgesia is beneficial to patient satisfaction and functional outcomes. Studies have demonstrated that dexamethasone may have a facilitatory role on the action of local anesthesia, but this effect, when added to a local infiltration analgesia (LIA) mixture for patients having knee arthroplasty, is underexplored. Our hypothesis was that the addition of dexamethasone to local anesthetic infiltration would improve analgesic outcomes following total knee arthroplasty.

METHODS

We performed a double-blind, randomized controlled trial of 140 patients undergoing elective, unilateral, total knee arthroplasty. Patients were randomly allocated to receive either 2 mL of saline 0.9% or 2 mL of dexamethasone 4 mg/mL added to a LIA mixture. Our primary outcome was 24 hours of oral morphine equivalent consumption. Our secondary outcomes included short-term and long-term analgesic and functional outcomes and adverse events.

RESULTS

A total of 72 patients were included in the saline group and 68 were included in the dexamethasone group. We found comparable 24 hours of morphine consumption between saline and dexamethasone groups, with a median of 60 (IQR 40-105 (range 16-230)) mg and 56 (IQR 41-75 (range 0-300)) mg, respectively (p=0.096). Dexamethasone was associated with a statistically significant reduction in total inpatient opioid consumption, incidence of requiring rescue patient-controlled analgesia, length of hospital stay, and postoperative nausea, compared with saline. Patients in the dexamethasone group had a greater range of joint movement and distance walked on postoperative day 1 than the saline group. There were no differences in rest or active pain scores, timed up and go or 3-month outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Dexamethasone 8 mg was associated with no improvements in 24 hours of morphine consumption but was associated with modest improvements in short-term analgesia, short-term function, length of stay and postoperative nausea. There were no long-term benefits in the use of dexamethasone in LIA for patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02760043.

Drugs for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting in adults after general anaesthesia: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common adverse effect of anaesthesia and surgery. Up to 80% of patients may be affected. These outcomes are a major cause of patient dissatisfaction and may lead to prolonged hospital stay and higher costs of care along with more severe complications. Many antiemetic drugs are available for prophylaxis. They have various mechanisms of action and side effects, but there is still uncertainty about which drugs are most effective with the fewest side effects.

OBJECTIVES

• To compare the efficacy and safety of different prophylactic pharmacologic interventions (antiemetic drugs) against no treatment, against placebo, or against each other (as monotherapy or combination prophylaxis) for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in adults undergoing any type of surgery under general anaesthesia • To generate a clinically useful ranking of antiemetic drugs (monotherapy and combination prophylaxis) based on efficacy and safety • To identify the best dose or dose range of antiemetic drugs in terms of efficacy and safety SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP), ClinicalTrials.gov, and reference lists of relevant systematic reviews. The first search was performed in November 2017 and was updated in April 2020. In the update of the search, 39 eligible studies were found that were not included in the analysis (listed as awaiting classification).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing effectiveness or side effects of single antiemetic drugs in any dose or combination against each other or against an inactive control in adults undergoing any type of surgery under general anaesthesia. All antiemetic drugs belonged to one of the following substance classes: 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists, D₂ receptor antagonists, NK₁ receptor antagonists, corticosteroids, antihistamines, and anticholinergics. No language restrictions were applied. Abstract publications were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

A review team of 11 authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias and subsequently extracted data. We performed pair-wise meta-analyses for drugs of direct interest (amisulpride, aprepitant, casopitant, dexamethasone, dimenhydrinate, dolasetron, droperidol, fosaprepitant, granisetron, haloperidol, meclizine, methylprednisolone, metoclopramide, ondansetron, palonosetron, perphenazine, promethazine, ramosetron, rolapitant, scopolamine, and tropisetron) compared to placebo (inactive control). We performed network meta-analyses (NMAs) to estimate the relative effects and ranking (with placebo as reference) of all available single drugs and combinations. Primary outcomes were vomiting within 24 hours postoperatively, serious adverse events (SAEs), and any adverse event (AE). Secondary outcomes were drug class-specific side effects (e.g. headache), mortality, early and late vomiting, nausea, and complete response. We performed subgroup network meta-analysis with dose of drugs as a moderator variable using dose ranges based on previous consensus recommendations. We assessed certainty of evidence of NMA treatment effects for all primary outcomes and drug class-specific side effects according to GRADE (CINeMA, Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis). We restricted GRADE assessment to single drugs of direct interest compared to placebo.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 585 studies (97,516 randomized participants). Most of these studies were small (median sample size of 100); they were published between 1965 and 2017 and were primarily conducted in Asia (51%), Europe (25%), and North America (16%). Mean age of the overall population was 42 years. Most participants were women (83%), had American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I and II (70%), received perioperative opioids (88%), and underwent gynaecologic (32%) or gastrointestinal surgery (19%) under general anaesthesia using volatile anaesthetics (88%). In this review, 44 single drugs and 51 drug combinations were compared. Most studies investigated only single drugs (72%) and included an inactive control arm (66%). The three most investigated single drugs in this review were ondansetron (246 studies), dexamethasone (120 studies), and droperidol (97 studies). Almost all studies (89%) reported at least one efficacy outcome relevant for this review. However, only 56% reported at least one relevant safety outcome. Altogether, 157 studies (27%) were assessed as having overall low risk of bias, 101 studies (17%) overall high risk of bias, and 327 studies (56%) overall unclear risk of bias. Vomiting within 24 hours postoperatively Relative effects from NMA for vomiting within 24 hours (282 RCTs, 50,812 participants, 28 single drugs, and 36 drug combinations) suggest that 29 out of 36 drug combinations and 10 out of 28 single drugs showed a clinically important benefit (defined as the upper end of the 95% confidence interval (CI) below a risk ratio (RR) of 0.8) compared to placebo. Combinations of drugs were generally more effective than single drugs in preventing vomiting. However, single NK₁ receptor antagonists showed treatment effects similar to most of the drug combinations. High-certainty evidence suggests that the following single drugs reduce vomiting (ordered by decreasing efficacy): aprepitant (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.38, high certainty, rank 3/28 of single drugs); ramosetron (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.59, high certainty, rank 5/28); granisetron (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.54, high certainty, rank 6/28); dexamethasone (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.57, high certainty, rank 8/28); and ondansetron (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.60, high certainty, rank 13/28). Moderate-certainty evidence suggests that the following single drugs probably reduce vomiting: fosaprepitant (RR 0.06, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.21, moderate certainty, rank 1/28) and droperidol (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.69, moderate certainty, rank 20/28). Recommended and high doses of granisetron, dexamethasone, ondansetron, and droperidol showed clinically important benefit, but low doses showed no clinically important benefit. Aprepitant was used mainly at high doses, ramosetron at recommended doses, and fosaprepitant at doses of 150 mg (with no dose recommendation available). Frequency of SAEs Twenty-eight RCTs were included in the NMA for SAEs (10,766 participants, 13 single drugs, and eight drug combinations). The certainty of evidence for SAEs when using one of the best and most reliable anti-vomiting drugs (aprepitant, ramosetron, granisetron, dexamethasone, ondansetron, and droperidol compared to placebo) ranged from very low to low. Droperidol (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.08 to 9.71, low certainty, rank 6/13) may reduce SAEs. We are uncertain about the effects of aprepitant (RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.26 to 7.36, very low certainty, rank 11/13), ramosetron (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.05 to 15.74, very low certainty, rank 7/13), granisetron (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.11 to 13.15, very low certainty, rank 10/13), dexamethasone (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.28 to 4.85, very low certainty, rank 9/13), and ondansetron (RR 1.62, 95% CI 0.32 to 8.10, very low certainty, rank 12/13). No studies reporting SAEs were available for fosaprepitant. Frequency of any AE Sixty-one RCTs were included in the NMA for any AE (19,423 participants, 15 single drugs, and 11 drug combinations). The certainty of evidence for any AE when using one of the best and most reliable anti-vomiting drugs (aprepitant, ramosetron, granisetron, dexamethasone, ondansetron, and droperidol compared to placebo) ranged from very low to moderate. Granisetron (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.05, moderate certainty, rank 7/15) probably has no or little effect on any AE. Dexamethasone (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.08, low certainty, rank 2/15) and droperidol (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.98, low certainty, rank 6/15) may reduce any AE. Ondansetron (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.01, low certainty, rank 9/15) may have little or no effect on any AE. We are uncertain about the effects of aprepitant (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.97, very low certainty, rank 3/15) and ramosetron (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.54, very low certainty, rank 11/15) on any AE. No studies reporting any AE were available for fosaprepitant. Class-specific side effects For class-specific side effects (headache, constipation, wound infection, extrapyramidal symptoms, sedation, arrhythmia, and QT prolongation) of relevant substances, the certainty of evidence for the best and most reliable anti-vomiting drugs mostly ranged from very low to low. Exceptions were that ondansetron probably increases headache (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.28, moderate certainty, rank 18/23) and probably reduces sedation (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.96, moderate certainty, rank 5/24) compared to placebo. The latter effect is limited to recommended and high doses of ondansetron. Droperidol probably reduces headache (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.86, moderate certainty, rank 5/23) compared to placebo. We have high-certainty evidence that dexamethasone (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.09, high certainty, rank 16/24) has no effect on sedation compared to placebo. No studies assessed substance class-specific side effects for fosaprepitant. Direction and magnitude of network effect estimates together with level of evidence certainty are graphically summarized for all pre-defined GRADE-relevant outcomes and all drugs of direct interest compared to placebo in http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4066353.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found high-certainty evidence that five single drugs (aprepitant, ramosetron, granisetron, dexamethasone, and ondansetron) reduce vomiting, and moderate-certainty evidence that two other single drugs (fosaprepitant and droperidol) probably reduce vomiting, compared to placebo. Four of the six substance classes (5-HT₃ receptor antagonists, D₂ receptor antagonists, NK₁ receptor antagonists, and corticosteroids) were thus represented by at least one drug with important benefit for prevention of vomiting. Combinations of drugs were generally more effective than the corresponding single drugs in preventing vomiting. NK₁ receptor antagonists were the most effective drug class and had comparable efficacy to most of the drug combinations. 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists were the best studied substance class. For most of the single drugs of direct interest, we found only very low to low certainty evidence for safety outcomes such as occurrence of SAEs, any AE, and substance class-specific side effects. Recommended and high doses of granisetron, dexamethasone, ondansetron, and droperidol were more effective than low doses for prevention of vomiting. Dose dependency of side effects was rarely found due to the limited number of studies, except for the less sedating effect of recommended and high doses of ondansetron. The results of the review are transferable mainly to patients at higher risk of nausea and vomiting (i.e. healthy women undergoing inhalational anaesthesia and receiving perioperative opioids). Overall study quality was limited, but certainty assessments of effect estimates consider this limitation. No further efficacy studies are needed as there is evidence of moderate to high certainty for seven single drugs with relevant benefit for prevention of vomiting. However, additional studies are needed to investigate potential side effects of these drugs and to examine higher-risk patient populations (e.g. individuals with diabetes and heart disease).