INTERSCALENE BRACHIAL PLEXUS BLOCK: COMPARISON OF EFFICACY OF VARYING DOSES OF DEXAMETHASONE COMBINED WITH LEVOBUPIVACAINE: A DOUBLE-BLIND RANDOMISED TRAIL

Regional anaesthesia for surgical repair of proximal humerus fractures: a systematic review and critical appraisal

INTRODUCTION

Regional anaesthesia (RA) is often used in shoulder surgery because it provides adequate postoperative analgesia and may enhance the patient outcome. RA reduces overall opioid consumption and is frequently used in enhanced recovery programs to decrease hospital stay. However, there is very limited literature confirming these advantages in the surgical repair of proximal humerus fractures. This paper reviews the current literature on the use of RA in pain management after surgical repair of these fractures and evaluates the effect of RA on the functional outcome, length of stay in hospital, and health care expenditure.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases were searched up to March 1, 2018. Studies investigating the use of RA in the management of proximal humerus fractures were included.

RESULTS

Eleven studies (containing 1872 patients) were eligible for inclusion. The analgesic effect of RA was investigated in eight studies that confirmed its pain-relieving ability. Two studies measured functionality and length of hospitalization and suggested that RA improved function and shortened the stay in hospital. Nine papers mentioned side effects associated with RA while three articles claim that RA decreases the incidence of adverse events associated with general anaesthesia.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review suggests that RA is a good option for postoperative analgesia in patients undergoing surgical repair of a proximal humerus fracture and is associated with fewer adverse events, a shorter recovery time, and a better functional outcome than those achieved by general anaesthesia alone. However, given the limited amount of data available, conclusions need to be made with caution and prospective studies are needed in the future.

Comparison of 4 mg dexamethasone versus 8 mg dexamethasone as an adjuvant to levobupivacaine in fascia iliaca block-a prospective study

Background

To compare the effects of adding two different doses of dexamethasone on the duration and quality of the fascia iliaca block in patients undergoing proximal femoral fracture surgery.

Methods

A total of 60 patients (age 18-70 years) undergoing proximal femoral nailing surgery under spinal anesthesia were given fascia iliaca block after random assignment to one of the two groups: Group H received an injection of levobupivacaine (0.5%) 28 ml with 2 ml (8 mg) dexamethasone, and Group L received an injection of levobupivacaine (0.5%) 28 ml with dexamethasone 1 ml (4 mg) with 1 ml normal saline. Assessment of the duration of analgesia and the total tramadol requirement over 48 hours were noted after a successful block.

Results

The duration of analgesia was found to be significantly longer in Group H (17.02 ± 0.45 h) than in the Group L patients (14.29 ± 0.45 h) with a p-value of 0.000. Postoperative analgesic requirement (amount of tramadol in mg) was significantly higher in Group L (Q2: 200.0; IQR: 100.0, 200.0) as compared to Group H (Q2: 100.0; IQR: 100.0, 200.0) with a p-value of 0.034. No patient showed any sign of neurotoxicity.

Conclusions

Dexamethasone, in a dose of 8 mg, is superior to 4 mg when used as an adjuvant with levobupivacaine in the FIB. Though both prolonged analgesia and were effective in reducing oral/intravenous analgesics, 8 mg dexamethasone can be recommended as a more efficacious adjuvant to local anesthetics in the FIB.

Dexamethasone as an adjuvant to peripheral nerve block

BACKGROUND

Peripheral nerve block (infiltration of local anaesthetic around a nerve) is used for anaesthesia or analgesia. A limitation to its use for postoperative analgesia is that the analgesic effect lasts only a few hours, after which moderate to severe pain at the surgical site may result in the need for alternative analgesic therapy. Several adjuvants have been used to prolong the analgesic duration of peripheral nerve block, including perineural or intravenous dexamethasone.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of perineural dexamethasone versus placebo, intravenous dexamethasone versus placebo, and perineural dexamethasone versus intravenous dexamethasone when added to peripheral nerve block for postoperative pain control in people undergoing surgery.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, DARE, Web of Science and Scopus from inception to 25 April 2017. We also searched trial registry databases, Google Scholar and meeting abstracts from the American Society of Anesthesiologists, the Canadian Anesthesiologists' Society, the American Society of Regional Anesthesia, and the European Society of Regional Anaesthesia.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing perineural dexamethasone with placebo, intravenous dexamethasone with placebo, or perineural dexamethasone with intravenous dexamethasone in participants receiving peripheral nerve block for upper or lower limb surgery.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 35 trials of 2702 participants aged 15 to 78 years; 33 studies enrolled participants undergoing upper limb surgery and two undergoing lower limb surgery. Risk of bias was low in 13 studies and high/unclear in 22. Perineural dexamethasone versus placeboDuration of sensory block was significantly longer in the perineural dexamethasone group compared with placebo (mean difference (MD) 6.70 hours, 95% confidence interval (CI) 5.54 to 7.85; participants1625; studies 27). Postoperative pain intensity at 12 and 24 hours was significantly lower in the perineural dexamethasone group compared with control (MD -2.08, 95% CI -2.63 to -1.53; participants 257; studies 5) and (MD -1.63, 95% CI -2.34 to -0.93; participants 469; studies 9), respectively. There was no significant difference at 48 hours (MD -0.61, 95% CI -1.24 to 0.03; participants 296; studies 4). The quality of evidence is very low for postoperative pain intensity at 12 hours and low for the remaining outcomes. Cumulative 24-hour postoperative opioid consumption was significantly lower in the perineural dexamethasone group compared with placebo (MD 19.25 mg, 95% CI 5.99 to 32.51; participants 380; studies 6). Intravenous dexamethasone versus placeboDuration of sensory block was significantly longer in the intravenous dexamethasone group compared with placebo (MD 6.21, 95% CI 3.53 to 8.88; participants 499; studies 8). Postoperative pain intensity at 12 and 24 hours was significantly lower in the intravenous dexamethasone group compared with placebo (MD -1.24, 95% CI -2.44 to -0.04; participants 162; studies 3) and (MD -1.26, 95% CI -2.23 to -0.29; participants 257; studies 5), respectively. There was no significant difference at 48 hours (MD -0.21, 95% CI -0.83 to 0.41; participants 172; studies 3). The quality of evidence is moderate for duration of sensory block and postoperative pain intensity at 24 hours, and low for the remaining outcomes. Cumulative 24-hour postoperative opioid consumption was significantly lower in the intravenous dexamethasone group compared with placebo (MD -6.58 mg, 95% CI -10.56 to -2.60; participants 287; studies 5). Perinerual versus intravenous dexamethasoneDuration of sensory block was significantly longer in the perineural dexamethasone group compared with intravenous by three hours (MD 3.14 hours, 95% CI 1.68 to 4.59; participants 720; studies 9). We found that postoperative pain intensity at 12 hours and 24 hours was significantly lower in the perineural dexamethasone group compared with intravenous, however, the MD did not surpass our pre-determined minimally important difference of 1.2 on the Visual Analgue Scale/Numerical Rating Scale, therefore the results are not clinically significant (MD -1.01, 95% CI -1.51 to -0.50; participants 217; studies 3) and (MD -0.77, 95% CI -1.47 to -0.08; participants 309; studies 5), respectively. There was no significant difference in severity of postoperative pain at 48 hours (MD 0.13, 95% CI -0.35 to 0.61; participants 227; studies 3). The quality of evidence is moderate for duration of sensory block and postoperative pain intensity at 24 hours, and low for the remaining outcomes. There was no difference in cumulative postoperative 24-hour opioid consumption (MD -3.87 mg, 95% CI -9.93 to 2.19; participants 242; studies 4). Incidence of severe adverse eventsFive serious adverse events were reported. One block-related event (pneumothorax) occurred in one participant in a trial comparing perineural dexamethasone and placebo; however group allocation was not reported. Four non-block-related events occurred in two trials comparing perineural dexamethasone, intravenous dexamethasone and placebo. Two participants in the placebo group required hospitalization within one week of surgery; one for a fall and one for a bowel infection. One participant in the placebo group developed Complex Regional Pain Syndrome Type I and one in the intravenous dexamethasone group developed pneumonia. The quality of evidence is very low due to the sparse number of events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Low- to moderate-quality evidence suggests that when used as an adjuvant to peripheral nerve block in upper limb surgery, both perineural and intravenous dexamethasone may prolong duration of sensory block and are effective in reducing postoperative pain intensity and opioid consumption. There is not enough evidence to determine the effectiveness of dexamethasone as an adjuvant to peripheral nerve block in lower limb surgeries and there is no evidence in children. The results of our review may not apply to participants at risk of dexamethasone-related adverse events for whom clinical trials would probably be unsafe.There is not enough evidence to determine the effectiveness of dexamethasone as an adjuvant to peripheral nerve block in lower limb surgeries and there is no evidence in children. The results of our review may not be apply to participants who at risk of dexamethasone-related adverse events for whom clinical trials would probably be unsafe. The nine ongoing trials registered at ClinicalTrials.gov may change the results of this review.