PECTORAL NERVE BLOCK VERSUS THORACIC PARAVERTEBRAL BLOCK– COMPARISON OF ANALGESIC EFFICACY FOR POSTOPERATIVE PAIN RELIEF IN MODIFIED RADICAL MASTECTOMY SURGERIES

Single-injection regional analgesia techniques for mastectomy surgery: A network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Patients undergoing mastectomy surgery experience severe postoperative pain. Several regional techniques have been developed to reduce pain intensity but it is unclear, which of these techniques is most effective.

OBJECTIVES

To synthesise direct and indirect comparisons for the relative efficacy of different regional and local analgesia techniques in the setting of unilateral mastectomy. Postoperative opioid consumption at 24 h, postoperative pain at extubation, 1, 12 and 24 h, postoperative nausea and vomiting were collected.

DESIGN

Systematic review with network meta-analysis (PROSPERO:CRD42021250651).

DATA SOURCE

PubMed, Scopus, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (from inception until 7 July 2021).

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials investigating single-injection regional and local analgesia techniques in adult patients undergoing unilateral mastectomy were included in our study without any language or publication date restriction.

RESULTS

Sixty-two included studies randomising 4074 patients and investigating nine techniques entered the analysis. All techniques were associated with less opioid consumption compared with controls The greatest mean difference [95% confidence interval (CI)] was associated with deep serratus anterior plane block: mean difference -16.1 mg (95% CI, -20.7 to -11.6). The greatest reduction in pain score was associated with the interpectoral-pecto-serratus plane block (mean difference -1.3, 95% CI, -1.6 to - 1) at 12 h postoperatively, and with superficial serratus anterior plane block (mean difference -1.4, 95% CI, -2.4 to -0.5) at 24 h. Interpectoral-pectoserratus plane block resulted in the greatest statistically significant reduction in postoperative nausea/vomiting when compared with placebo/no intervention with an OR of 0.23 (95% CI, 0.13 to 0.40).

CONCLUSION

All techniques were associated with superior analgesia and less opioid consumption compared with controls. No single technique was identified as superior to others. In comparison, local anaesthetic infiltration does not offer advantages over multimodal analgesia alone.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO (CRD4202125065).

Efficacy of regional anesthesia techniques for postoperative analgesia in patients undergoing major oncologic breast surgeries: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

The optimal regional technique to control pain after breast cancer surgery remains unclear. We sought to synthesize available data from randomized controlled trials comparing pain-related outcomes following various regional techniques for major oncologic breast surgery.

METHODS

In a systematic review and network meta-analysis, we searched trials in PubMed, Embase Scopus, Medline, Cochrane Central and Google Scholar, from inception to 31 July 2020, for commonly used regional techniques. The primary outcome was the 24-hr resting pain score measured on a numerical rating score of 0-10. We used surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) to establish the probability of an intervention ranking highest. The analysis was performed using the Bayesian random effects model, and effect sizes are reported as 95% credible interval (Crl). We conducted cluster-rank analysis by combining 24-hr pain ranking with 24-hr opioid use or incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting.

RESULTS

Seventy-nine randomized controlled trials containing 11 different interventions in 5,686 patients were included. The SUCRA values of the interventions for 24-hr resting pain score were continuous paravertebral block (0.83), serratus anterior plane block (0.76), continuous wound infusion (0.76), single-level paravertebral block (0.68), erector spinae plane block (0.59), modified pectoral block (0.49), intercostal block (0.45), multilevel paravertebral block (0.41), wound infiltration (0.33), no intervention (0.12), and placebo (0.08). When compared with placebo, the continuous paravertebral block (mean difference, 1.26; 95% Crl, 0.43 to 2.12) and serratus anterior plane block (mean difference, 1.12; 95% Crl, 0.32 to 1.9) had the highest estimated probability of decreasing 24-hr resting pain scores. Cluster ranking analysis combining 24-hr resting pain scores and opioid use showed that most regional analgesia techniques were more effective than no intervention or placebo. Nevertheless, wound infiltration and continuous wound infusion may be the least effective active interventions for reducing postoperative nausea and vomiting.

CONCLUSION

Continuous paravertebral block and serratus anterior plane block had a high probability of reducing pain at 24 hr after major oncologic breast surgery. The certainty of evidence was moderate to very low. Future studies should compare different regional anesthesia techniques, including surgeon-administered techniques such as wound infiltration or catheters. Trials comparing active intervention with placebo are unlikely to change clinical practice.

STUDY REGISTRATION

PROSPERO (CRD42020198244); registered 19 October 2020.

Efficacy and Safety of Pectoral Nerve Block (Pecs) Compared With Control, Paravertebral Block, Erector Spinae Plane Block, and Local Anesthesia in Patients Undergoing Breast Cancer Surgeries: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of pectoral nerve block (Pecs) I and II with control or other techniques used during breast cancer surgeries such as local anesthesia, paravertebral block, and erector spinae plane block (ESPB).

METHODS

We searched 4 search engines (PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science) for relevant trials, then extracted the data and combined them under random-effect model using Review Manager Software.

RESULTS

We found 47 studies, 37 of them were included in our meta-analysis. Regarding intraoperative opioid consumption, compared with control, a significant reduction was detected in Pecs II (standardized mean difference [SMD]=-1.75, 95% confidence interval [CI] [-2.66, -0.85], P=0.0001) and Pecs I combined with serratus plane block (SMD=-0.90, 95% CI [-1.37, -0.44], P=0.0002). Postoperative opioid consumption was significantly lowered in Pecs II (SMD=-2.28, 95% CI [-3.10, -1.46], P<0.00001) compared with control and Pecs II compared with ESPB (SMD=-1.75, 95% CI [-2.53, -0.98], P<0.00001). Furthermore, addition of dexmedetomidine to Pecs II significantly reduced postoperative opioid consumption compared with Pecs II alone (SMD=-1.33, 95% CI [-2.28, -0.38], P=0.006).

CONCLUSION

Pecs block is a safe and effective analgesic procedure during breast cancer surgeries. It shows lower intra and postoperative opioid consumption than ESPB, and reduces pain compared with control, paravertebral block, and local anesthesia, with better effect when combined with dexmedetomidine.

Pectoral nerve blocks for breast surgery: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Pectoral nerve blocks (PECS block) might be an interesting new regional anaesthetic technique in patients undergoing breast surgery.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this meta-analysis was to investigate postoperative pain outcomes and adverse events of a PECS block compared with no treatment, sham treatment or other regional anaesthetic techniques in women undergoing breast surgery.

DESIGN

We performed a systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCT) with meta-analysis and risk of bias assessment.

DATA SOURCES

The databases MEDLINE, CENTRAL (until December 2019) and clinicaltrials.gov were systematically searched.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

All RCTs investigating the efficacy and adverse events of PECS compared with sham treatment, no treatment or other regional anaesthetic techniques in women undergoing breast surgery with general anaesthesia were included.

RESULTS

A total of 24 RCTs (1565 patients) were included. PECS (compared with no treatment) block might reduce pain at rest [mean difference -1.14, 95% confidence interval (CI), -2.1 to -0.18, moderate quality evidence] but we are uncertain regarding the effect on pain during movement at 24 h after surgery (mean difference -1.79, 95% CI, -3.5 to -0.08, very low-quality evidence). We are also uncertain about the effect of PECS block on pain at rest at 24 h compared with sham block (mean difference -0.83, 95% CI, -1.80 to 0.14) or compared with paravertebral block (PVB) (mean difference -0.18, 95% CI, -1.0 to 0.65), both with very low-quality evidence. PECS block may have no effect on pain on movement at 24 h after surgery compared with PVB block (mean difference -0.56, 95% CI, -1.53 to 0.41, low-quality evidence). Block-related complications were generally poorly reported.

CONCLUSION

There is moderate quality evidence that PECS block compared with no treatment reduces postoperative pain intensity at rest. The observed results were less pronounced if patients received a sham block. Furthermore, PECS blocks might be equally effective as PVBs. Due to mostly low-quality or very low-quality evidence level, further research is warranted.

PROTOCOL REGISTRATION

CRD42019126733.