Comparison of Ultrasound-Guided Supra-scapular Plus Axillary Nerve Block with Interscalene Block for Postoperative Pain Management in Arthroscopic Shoulder Surgery; A Double-Blinded Randomized Open-Label Clinical Trial

Efficacy and adverse effects of peripheral nerve blocks and local infiltration anesthesia after arthroscopic shoulder surgery: A Bayesian network meta-analysis

Study objective

To quantitatively assess and compare the efficacy and adverse effects of six different peripheral nerve block techniques after arthroscopic shoulder surgery (ASS).

Design

Bayesian network meta-analysis.

Methods

The PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, China National Knowledge Infrastructure database, Chinese Scientific Journal database, Wan Fang databases were searched to retrieve randomized clinical trials comparing interscalene brachial plexus block, continuous interscalene brachial plexus block, supraclavicular brachial plexus block, suprascapular nerve block, combined suprascapular and axillary nerve block and local infiltration analgesia on postoperative pain, opioid consumption, and adverse effects (defined as Horner’s syndrome, dyspnea, hoarseness, vomiting, and nausea) after ASS under general anesthesia (GA). Two reviewers independently screened the literature, extracted data, and evaluated the risk of bias in the included studies.

Results

A total of 1,348 articles were retrieved initially and 36 randomized clinical trials involving 3,124 patients were included in the final analysis. The network meta-analysis showed that interscalene brachial plexus block was superior in reducing pain and opioid consumption compared to the five other interventions. However, adverse effects were reduced using suprascapular nerve block and combined suprascapular and axillary nerve block compared to interscalene brachial plexus block.

Conclusion

Interscalene brachial plexus block was superior in reducing pain and opioid consumption compared to other peripheral nerve blocks but had a higher frequency of adverse events.

Ultrasound-Guided Clavipectoral Block for Postoperative Analgesia of Clavicular Surgery: A Prospective Randomized Trial

Background

Clavicular fractures are commonly encountered in daily practice, and most cases are operated under general surgery. Until now, there has been a debate about the best approach to manage pain in such cases.

Objectives

We aimed to evaluate whether ultrasound-guided clavipectoral block [clavipectoral fascial plane block (CPB)] would be safe and effective in cases with clavicular fractures.

Methods

This prospective randomized study included a total of 40 patients with clavicular fractures; they were divided into 2 groups. Group 1 included 20 cases who underwent CPB, and group 2 included 20 cases who underwent placebo block. Pain score, duration of analgesia, total analgesic consumption, and procedure-related complications were noted and recorded.

Results

Despite the comparable demographic data between the 2 groups, pain scores were significantly lower in group 1 than in group 2, starting from postanesthesia care unit (PACU) admission until 12 hours after the operation. Group 1 showed a significant reduction in 24-hour opioid consumption and significant prolongation of the duration of analgesia compared to the placebo. Patient satisfaction was significantly better in group 1 than in group 2. No block-related adverse events were recorded.

Conclusions

CPB is a safe and effective regional technique that should be used for pain management after clavicular fixation surgery.

Supraclavicular vs. Infraclavicular Brachial Plexus Nerve Blocks: Clinical, Pharmacological, and Anatomical Considerations

: Peripheral nerve blocks (PNB) have become standard of care for enhanced recovery pathways after surgery. For brachial plexus delivery of anesthesia, both supraclavicular (SC) and infraclavicular (IC) approaches have been shown to require less supplemental anesthesia, are performed more rapidly, have quicker onset time, and have lower rates of complications than other approaches (axillary, interscalene, etc.). Ultrasound-guidance is commonly utilized to improve outcomes, limit the need for deep sedation or general anesthesia, and reduce procedural complications. Given the SC and IC approaches are the most common approaches for brachial plexus blocks, the differences between the two have been critically evaluated in the present manuscript. Various studies have demonstrated slight favorability towards the IC approach from the standpoint of complications and safety. Two prospective RCTs found a higher incidence of complications in the SC approach – particularly Horner syndrome. The IC method appears to support a greater block distribution as well. Overall, both SC and IC brachial plexus nerve block approaches are the most effective and safe approaches, particularly under ultrasound-guidance. Given the success of the supraclavicular and infraclavicular blocks, these techniques are an important skill set for the anesthesiologist for intraoperative anesthesia and postoperative analgesia.

Novel Regional Nerve Blocks in Clinical Practice: Evolving Techniques for Pain Management

This review examines the use of novel US-guided nerve blocks in clinical practice. Erector spinae block is a regional anesthesia technique doing by injecting a local anesthetic among the erector spinae muscle group and transverse processes. The phrenic nerve is a branch of the cervical plexus, arising from the anterior rami of cervical nerves C3, C4, and C5. The quadratus lumborum muscle is located along the posterior abdominal wall. It originates from the transverse process of the L5 vertebral body, the iliolumbar ligament, and the iliac crest. US-guided peripheral nerve procedures have a considerable scope of use, including treating headaches and hiccups to abdominal surgical pain, cesarean sections, musculoskeletal pathologies. These nerve blocks have been an effective addition to clinical anesthesia practice. The use of peripheral nerve blocks has improved postoperative pain, lessened the use of opioids and their potential side effects, and decreased the incidence of sleep disturbance in patients. More research should be done to further delineate the potential benefits of these blocks.

Comparison of Dexmedetomidine and Dexamethasone as Adjuvants to Ultra-Sound Guided Interscalene Block in Arthroscopic Shoulder Surgery: A Double-Blinded Randomized Placebo-Controlled Study

BACKGROUND

Interscalene block is one of the popular methods for decreasing pain and analgesic consumption after shoulder arthroscopic surgeries.

OBJECTIVES

The objective is to compare the analgesic duration of effects of dexmedetomidine and dexamethasone as adjuvants to 0.5% ropivacaine in ultrasound-guided interscalene blocks for arthroscopic shoulder surgery in an ambulatory setting.

METHODS

In this randomized controlled trial, 117 adult patients candidate for ambulatory arthroscopic shoulder surgery under general anesthesia were divided into three groups to perform an ultra-sound guided interscalene block before the surgery. The ropivacaine (control) group received ropivacaine 0.5% 20 mL, group Dexamethasone received ropivacaine 0.5% 20 mL plus 4mg dexamethasone, and group dexmedetomidine received ropivacaine 0.5% 20 mL plus 75 mcg of dexmedetomidine. Time to return of sensory function, of motor function, of first pain sensation, amount of opioid medication consumed at 24 hours and 48 hours post-operatively were measured.

RESULTS

The 24-hour median (25th- 75th percentile) opioid consumption in morphine equivalents was similar between groups 22.5 mg (10 - 30), 15 mg (0 - 30), and 15 mg (0 - 20.6) in the ropivacaine, dexmedetomidine, and dexamethasone groups, respectively (P = 0.130). The median (25th- 75th percentile) 48 hours post-operatively, the median opioid consumption in morphine equivalents was 40 mg (25 - 67.5) in the ropivacaine group, 30 mg (22 - 50.6) in the dexamethasone group, and 52.5 mg (30 - 75) in the dexmedetomidine group (P = 0.278). The median 24-hour pain scores were 6 (5 - 8) in the ropivacaine control group, 7 (5.5 - 8) in the dexamethasone group, and 7 (4 - 9) in the dexmedetomidine group (P = 0.573).

CONCLUSIONS

There was no statistical difference in opioid consumption at 24 and 48 hours post-operatively when comparing dexmedetomidine, dexamethasone, and no adjuvant. However, intraoperative opioid use was significantly lower with dexmedetomidine compared to dexamethasone and plain 0.5% ropivacaine. The safe side effect profile of dexmedetomidine makes it a reasonable alternative as an adjuvant for peripheral nerve blockade when dexamethasone use may be contraindicated.