Analgesic Effectiveness of Liposomal Bupivacaine versus Plain Local Anesthetics for Abdominal Fascial Plane Blocks: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Trials.

BACKGROUND: Liposomal bupivacaine is reported to prolong the duration of analgesia when used for abdominal fascial plane blocks compared to plain local anesthetics; however, evidence from randomized trials is mixed. This meta-analysis aims to compare the analgesic effectiveness of liposomal bupivacaine to plain local anesthetics in adults receiving abdominal fascial plane blocks. METHODS: Randomized trials comparing liposomal bupivacaine and plain (nonliposomal) local anesthetics in abdominal fascial plane blocks were sought. The primary outcome was area under the curve rest pain between 24 to 72 h postoperatively. Secondary outcomes included rest pain at individual timepoints (1, 6, 12, 24, 48, and 72 h); analgesic consumption at 0 to 24, 25 to 48, and 49 to 72 h; time to analgesic request; hospital stay duration; and opioid-related side effects. Data were pooled using the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman random effects method. RESULTS: Sixteen trials encompassing 1,287 patients (liposomal bupivacaine, 667; plain local anesthetics, 620) were included. The liposomal bupivacaine group received liposomal bupivacaine mixed with plain bupivacaine in 10 studies, liposomal bupivacaine alone in 5 studies, and both preparations in 1 three-armed study. No difference was observed between the two groups for area under the curve pain scores, with a standardized mean difference (95% CI) of -0.21 cm.h (-0.43 to 0.01; P = 0.058; I2 = 48%). Results were robust to subgroup analysis based on (1) potential conflict of interest and (2) mixing of plain local anesthetics with liposomal bupivacaine. The two groups were not different for any of the day 2 or day 3 secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review and meta-analysis suggests similar analgesic effectiveness between liposomal bupivacaine and plain local anesthetics when used for fascial plane block of the abdominal wall. The authors' analysis does not support an evidence-based preference for liposomal bupivacaine compared to plain local anesthetics for abdominal fascial plane blocks.

The analgesic effectiveness of perioperative lidocaine infusions for acute and chronic persistent postsurgical pain in patients undergoing breast cancer surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer is the most common cancer among women and tumour resection carries a high prevalence of chronic persistent postsurgical pain (CPSP). Perioperative i.v. lidocaine infusion has been proposed as protective against CPSP; however, evidence of its benefits is conflicting. This review evaluates the effectiveness of perioperative lidocaine infusions for breast cancer surgery. METHODS: Randomised trials comparing perioperative lidocaine infusions with parenteral analgesia in breast cancer surgery patients were sought. The two co-primary outcomes were the odds of CPSP at 3 and 6 months after operation. Secondary outcomes included rest pain at 1, 6, 12, and 24 h; analgesic consumption at 0-24 and 25-48 h; quality of recovery; opioid-related side-effects; and lidocaine infusion side-effects. Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman (HKSJ) random effects modelling was used. RESULTS: Thirteen trials (1039 patients; lidocaine: 518, control: 521) were included. Compared with control, perioperative lidocaine infusion did not decrease the odds of developing CPSP at 3 and 6 months. Lidocaine infusion improved postoperative pain at 1 h by a mean difference (95% confidence interval) of -0.65 cm (-0.73 to -0.57 cm) (P<0.0001); however, this difference was not clinically important (1.1 cm threshold). Similarly, lidocaine infusion reduced oral morphine consumption by 7.06 mg (-13.19 to -0.93) (P=0.029) over the first 24 h only; however, this difference was not clinically important (30 mg threshold). The groups were not different for any of the remaining outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Our results provide moderate-quality evidence that perioperative lidocaine infusion does not reduce CPSP in patients undergoing breast cancer surgery. Routine use of lidocaine infusions for perioperative analgesia and CPSP prevention is not supported in this population. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW PROTOCOL: PROSPERO CRD42023420888.

Analgesic Effectiveness of Motor-sparing Nerve Blocks for Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Network Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The analgesic effectiveness of contemporary motor-sparing nerve blocks used in combination for analgesia in total knee arthroplasty is unclear. This network meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the analgesic effectiveness of adding single-injection or continuous adductor canal block (ACB) with or without infiltration of the interspace between the popliteal artery and the capsule of the posterior knee (iPACK) to intraoperative local infiltration analgesia (LIA), compared to LIA alone, after total knee arthroplasty. METHODS: Randomized trials examining the addition of single-injection or continuous ACB with or without single-injection block at the iPACK to LIA for total knee arthroplasty were considered. The two primary outcomes were area-under-the-curve pain scores over 24 to 48 h and postoperative function at greater than 24 h. Secondary outcomes included rest pain scores at 0, 6, 12, and 24 h; opioid consumption (from 0 to 24 h and from 25 to 48 h); and incidence of nausea/vomiting. Network meta-analysis was conducted using a frequentist approach. RESULTS: A total of 27 studies (2,317 patients) investigating the addition of (1) single-injection ACB, (2) continuous ACB, (3) single-injection ACB and single-injection block at the iPACK, and (4) continuous ACB and single-injection block at the iPACK to LIA, as compared to LIA alone, were included. For area-under-the-curve 24- to 48-h pain, the addition of continuous ACB with single-injection block at the iPACK displayed the highest P-score probability (89%) of being most effective for pain control. The addition of continuous ACB without single-injection block at the iPACK displayed the highest P-score probability (87%) of being most effective for postoperative function. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that continuous ACB, but not single-injection ACB and/or single-injection block at the iPACK, provides statistically superior analgesia when added to LIA for total knee arthroplasty compared to LIA alone. However, the magnitude of these additional analgesic benefits is clinically questionable.

Analgesic benefits of single-shot versus continuous adductor canal block for total knee arthroplasty: a systemic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: Adductor canal block (ACB) can provide important analgesic benefits following total knee arthroplasty (TKA), however, the extent to which these benefits can be enhanced or prolonged by a continuous catheter-based infusion compared with a single-shot injection of local anesthetic is unclear. OBJECTIVES: This systematic review and meta-analysis (PROSPERO: CRD42021292738) review sought to compare the analgesic effectiveness of single shot to continuous ACB following TKA. EVIDENCE REVIEW: We sought randomized trials from the US National Library of Medicine database (MEDLINE), Excerpta Medica database (EMBASE), and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from inception to November 1, 2021, that compared single-shot to continuous ACB in adult patients undergoing TKA. The primary outcomes were (1) area under the curve (AUC) pain severity at rest and (2) cumulative opioid (oral morphine equivalent) consumption during the first 48 hours postoperatively. Secondary outcomes included postoperative pain severity scores up to 48 hours, cumulative opioid consumption at 24 hours, functional recovery, opioid-related side effects, and block-related complications. Risk of bias of included studies was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Statistical pooling was conducted using the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman method for random effects. No funding was obtained for this review. FINDINGS: Eleven trials (1185 patients) were included. No differences were observed in rest pain severity (AUC) or cumulative opioid consumption up to 48 hours postoperatively. In addition, no differences were observed in individual postoperative rest pain scores in the recovery room and at 12 and 24 hours, or in cumulative opioid consumption at 24 hours, functional recovery, and opioid-related side effects. Finally, fewer block-related complications were observed with single-shot ACB, with an OR (95% CI) of 0.24 (0.14 to 0.41) (p=0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that continuous catheter-based ACB does not enhance or prolong the analgesic benefits when compared with single-shot ACB for TKA over the first 48 hours postoperatively. Overall, the results of our meta-analysis do not support the routine use of continuous ACB for postoperative analgesia after TKA.

What Is the Risk of Postoperative Neurologic Symptoms After Regional Anesthesia in Upper Extremity Surgery? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Trials.

BACKGROUND: The risk of neurologic symptoms after regional anesthesia in orthopaedic surgery is estimated to approach 3%, with long-term deficits affecting 2 to 4 per 10,000 patients. However, current estimates are derived from large retrospective or observational studies that are subject to important systemic biases. Therefore, to harness the highest quality data and overcome the challenge of small numbers of participants in individual randomized trials, we undertook this systematic review and meta-analysis of contemporary randomized trials. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: In this systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials we asked: (1) What is the aggregate pessimistic and optimistic risk of postoperative neurologic symptoms after regional anesthesia in upper extremity surgery? (2) What block locations have the highest and lowest risk of postoperative neurologic symptoms? (3) What is the timing of occurrence of postoperative neurologic symptoms (in days) after surgery? METHODS: We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Web of Science, Scopus, and PubMed for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published between 2008 and 2019 that prospectively evaluated postoperative neurologic symptoms after peripheral nerve blocks in operative procedures. Based on the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation guidance for using the Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions tool, most trials registered a global rating of a low-to-intermediate risk of bias. A total of 12,532 participants in 143 trials were analyzed. Data were pooled and interpreted using two approaches to calculate the aggregate risk of postoperative neurologic symptoms: first according to the occurrence of each neurologic symptom, such that all reported symptoms were considered mutually exclusive (pessimistic estimate), and second according to the occurrence of any neurologic symptom for each participant, such that all reported symptoms were considered mutually inclusive (optimistic estimate). RESULTS: At any time postoperatively, the aggregate pessimistic and optimistic risks of postoperative neurologic symptoms were 7% (915 of 12,532 [95% CI 7% to 8%]) and 6% (775 of 12,532 [95% CI 6% to 7%]), respectively. Interscalene block was associated with the highest risk (13% [661 of 5101] [95% CI 12% to 14%]) and axillary block the lowest (3% [88 of 3026] [95% CI 2% to 4%]). Of all symptom occurrences, 73% (724 of 998) were reported between 0 and 7 days, 24% (243 of 998) between 7 and 90 days, and 3% (30 of 998) between 90 and 180 days. Among the 31 occurrences reported at 90 days or beyond, all involved sensory deficits and four involved motor deficits, three of which ultimately resolved. CONCLUSION: When assessed prospectively in randomized trials, the aggregate risk of postoperative neurologic symptoms associated with peripheral nerve block in upper extremity surgery was approximately 7%, which is greater than previous estimates described in large retrospective and observational trials. Most occurrences were reported within the first week and were associated with an interscalene block. Few occurrences were reported after 90 days, and they primarily involved sensory deficits. Although these findings cannot inform causation, they can help inform risk discussions and clinical decisions, as well as bolster our understanding of the evolution of postoperative neurologic symptoms after regional anesthesia in upper extremity surgery. Future prospective trials examining the risks of neurologic symptoms should aim to standardize descriptions of symptoms, timing of evaluation, classification of severity, and diagnostic methods. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I, therapeutic study.

Regional anesthesia techniques and postoperative delirium: systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Postoperative delirium is a frequent occurrence in the elderly surgical population. As a comprehensive list of predictive factors remains unknown, an opioid-sparing approach incorporating regional anesthesia techniques has been suggested to decrease its incidence. Due to the lack of conclusive evidence on the topic, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the potential impact of regional anesthesia and analgesia on postoperative delirium. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane central register of Controlled trials (CENTRAL) databases were searched for randomized trials comparing regional anesthesia or analgesia to systemic treatments in patients having any type of surgery. This systematic review and meta-analysis followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. We pooled the results separately for each of these two applications by random effects modelling. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system was used to evaluate the certainty of evidence and strength of conclusions. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Eighteen trials (3361 subjects) were included. Using regional techniques for surgical anesthesia failed to reduce the risk of postoperative delirium, with a relative risk (RR) of 1.21 (95% CI: 0.79 to 1.85); P=0.3800. In contrast, regional analgesia reduced the relative risk of perioperative delirium by a RR of 0.53 (95% CI: 0.42 to 0.68; P<0.0001), when compared to systemic analgesia. Post-hoc subgroup analysis for hip fracture surgery yielded similar findings. CONCLUSIONS: These results show that postoperative delirium may be decreased when regional techniques are used in the postoperative period as an analgesic strategy. Intraoperative regional anesthesia alone may not decrease postoperative delirium since there are other factors that may influence this outcome.

Opioid prescribing and utilization patterns in patients having elective hip and knee arthroplasty: association between prescription patterns and opioid consumption.

PURPOSE: Although guidelines can reduce postoperative opioid prescription, the problem of unused opioids persists. We assessed the pattern of opioid prescription and utilization after total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA). We hypothesized that opioid prescription patterns can influence opioid utilization. METHODS: With institutional ethics approval, patients undergoing THA and TKA were enrolled prospectively. Surveys on opioid use were completed at two, six, and 12 weeks after surgery. Patients' age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists' Physical Status score, first 24-hr opioid consumption, quantity of opioid prescribed, and quantity of opioid utilized were analyzed to evaluate their effect on opioid consumption, unused opioid, and patient satisfaction. RESULTS: Patients received prescriptions ranging from 200 morphine milligram equivalents (MME) to 800 MME. Three hundred and thirty THA and 230 TKA patients completed the surveys. Opioid utilization was influenced by the amount of prescribed opioids for both THA and TKA. The percentage of prescribed opioids used (~55% in THA and ~75% in TKA) and the proportion of patients using all prescribed opioids (~22% in THA and ~50% in TKA) were higher after TKA vs THA (P < 0.001 for both). Patients who used opioids for two days or less accounted for most (~50%) of the unused opioid. Patient satisfaction remained high and was not influenced by the amount of prescribed opioid. CONCLUSION: This study showed that larger prescriptions are associated with higher opioid consumption. A wide variation in opioid consumption requires approaches to minimize the initial opioid prescription and to provide additional prescriptions for patients that require higher levels of analgesia.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Bien que les lignes directrices puissent réduire la prescription d'opioïdes postopératoires, le problème des opioïdes inutilisés persiste. Nous avons évalué les schémas de prescription et d'utilisation d'opioïdes après une arthroplastie totale de la hanche (ATH) et une arthroplastie totale du genou (ATG). Nous avons émis l'hypothèse que les schémas de prescription d'opioïdes pouvaient influencer l'utilisation des opioïdes. MéTHODE: Avec l'approbation du comité d'éthique de notre établissement, les patients bénéficiant d'une ATH et une ATG ont été recrutés de manière prospective. Les questionnaires sur la consommation d'opioïdes ont été complétés deux, six et 12 semaines après la chirurgie. L'âge, le sexe et le score de statut physique selon l'American Society of Anesthesiologists des patients, ainsi que la consommation d'opioïdes au cours des premières 24 heures postopératoires, la quantité d'opioïdes prescrits et la quantité d'opioïdes utilisés ont été analysés pour évaluer leur effet sur la consommation d'opioïdes, les opioïdes inutilisés et la satisfaction des patients. RéSULTATS: Les patients ont reçu des ordonnances allant de 200 équivalents de morphine en milligrammes (EMM) à 800 EMM. Trois cent trente patients bénéficiant d'une ATH et 230 patients d'une ATG ont répondu aux questionnaires. L'utilisation des opioïdes a été influencée par la quantité d'opioïdes prescrits pour l'ATH et l'ATG. Le pourcentage d'opioïdes prescrits utilisés (~55 % dans l'ATH et ~75 % dans l'ATG) et la proportion de patients utilisant tous les opioïdes prescrits (~22 % dans l'ATH et ~50 % dans l'ATG) étaient plus élevés après l'ATG vs l'ATH (P < 0,001 pour les deux). Les patients qui ont utilisé des opioïdes pendant deux jours ou moins étaient à l'origine de la plupart (~ 50%) des opioïdes inutilisés. La satisfaction des patients est demeurée élevée et n'a pas été influencée par la quantité d'opioïdes prescrits. CONCLUSION: Cette étude a démontré que les ordonnances plus élevées sont associées à une consommation plus élevée d'opioïdes. Une grande variation dans la consommation d'opioïdes nécessite des approches visant à minimiser la prescription initiale d'opioïdes et à fournir des ordonnances supplémentaires aux patients qui nécessitent des niveaux plus élevés d'analgésie.

Efficacy of perineural versus intravenous dexmedetomidine as a peripheral nerve block adjunct: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Dexmedetomidine is an effective local anesthetic adjunct for peripheral nerve blocks. The intravenous route for administering dexmedetomidine has been suggested to be equally effective to the perineural route; but comparative evidence is conflicting. OBJECTIVES: This evidence-based review evaluated trials comparing the effects of intravenous to perineural dexmedetomidine on peripheral nerve block characteristics in adult surgical patients. Our primary aim was to evaluate the durations of sensory and motor blockade. Duration of analgesia, onset times of sensory and motor blockade, analgesic consumption, rest pain, and dexmedetomidine-related adverse events were evaluated as secondary outcomes. EVIDENCE REVIEW: We sought randomized trials comparing the effects of intravenous to perineural dexmedetomidine on peripheral nerve block characteristics. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria was used to evaluate the quality of evidence for when an outcome was reported by at least three studies. RESULTS: Ten studies compared intravenous and perineural dexmedetomidine in the setting of upper extremity blocks (seven), lower extremity blocks (two), and truncal block (one). The doses of dexmedetomidine supplementing long-acting local anesthetics varied between a predetermined dose (50 µg) and a weight-based dose (0.5 µg/kg-1.0 µg/kg). Clinical diversity precluded quantitative pooling; and evidence is presented as a systematic review. Compared with the intravenous route, moderate quality evidence found that perineural dexmedetomidine prolonged the duration of sensory blockade in four of six trials and motor blockade in five of seven trials. Perineural dexmedetomidine also hastened the onset of sensory and motor blockade in three of six trials. No differences were reported for the remaining outcomes; and intravenous dexmedetomidine was not superior for any outcome in any of the trials. CONCLUSIONS: Moderate quality evidence appears to suggest that intravenous dexmedetomidine is an inferior peripheral nerve block adjunct compared with perineural dexmedetomidine. Perineural dexmedetomidine is associated with longer durations and faster onset of sensory and motor blockade.

Does the addition of iPACK to adductor canal block in the presence or absence of periarticular local anesthetic infiltration improve analgesic and functional outcomes following total knee arthroplasty? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: When combined with adductor canal block (ACB), local anesthetic infiltration between popliteal artery and capsule of knee (iPACK) is purported to improve pain following total knee arthroplasty (TKA). However, the analgesic benefits of adding iPACK to ACB in the setting of surgeon-administered periarticular local infiltration analgesia (LIA) are unclear. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the analgesic benefits of adding iPACK to ACB, compared with ACB alone, in the setting of LIA following TKA. EVIDENCE REVIEW: We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing the effects of adding iPACK block to ACB versus ACB alone on pain severity at 6 hours postoperatively in adult patients undergoing TKA. We a priori planned to stratify analysis for use of LIA. Opioid consumption at 24 hours, functional recovery, and iPACK-related complications were secondary outcomes. FINDINGS: Fourteen trials (1044 patients) were analyzed. For the primary outcome comparison in the presence of LIA (four trials, 273 patients), adding iPACK to ACB did not improve postoperative pain at 6 hours. However, in the absence of LIA (eight trials, 631 patients), adding iPACK to ACB reduced pain by a weighted mean difference (WMD) (95% CI) of -1.33 cm (-1.57 to -1.09) (p<0.00001). For the secondary outcome comparisons in the presence of LIA, adding iPACK to ACB did not improve postoperative pain at all other time points, opioid consumption or functional recovery. In contrast, in the absence of LIA, adding iPACK to ACB reduced pain at 12 hours, and 24 hours by a WMD (95% CI) of -0.98 (-1.79 to -0.17) (p=0.02) and -0.69 (-1.18 to -0.20) (p=0.006), respectively, when compared with ACB alone, but did not reduce opioid consumption. Functional recovery was also improved by a log(odds ratio) (95% CI) of 1.28 (0.45 to 2.11) (p=0.003). No iPACK-related complications were reported. CONCLUSION: Adding iPACK to ACB in the setting of periarticular LIA does not improve analgesic outcomes following TKA. In the absence of LIA, adding iPACK to ACB reduces pain up to 24 hours and enhances functional recovery. Our findings do not support the addition of iPACK to ACB when LIA is routinely administered.

Perineural Liposomal Bupivacaine Is Not Superior to Nonliposomal Bupivacaine for Peripheral Nerve Block Analgesia.

BACKGROUND: Liposomal bupivacaine is purported to extend analgesia of peripheral nerve blocks when administered perineurally. However, evidence of the clinical effectiveness of perineural liposomal bupivacaine is mixed. This meta-analysis seeks to evaluate the effectiveness of perineural liposomal bupivacaine in improving peripheral nerve block analgesia as compared with nonliposomal local anesthetics. METHODS: The authors identified randomized trials evaluating the effectiveness of peripheral nerve block analgesic that compared liposomal bupivacaine with nonliposomal local anesthetics. The primary outcome was the difference in area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC) of the pooled 24- to 72-h rest pain severity scores. Secondary outcomes included postoperative analgesic consumption, time to first analgesic request, incidence of opioid-related side effects, patient satisfaction, length of hospital stay, liposomal bupivacaine side effects, and functional recovery. AUC pain scores were interpreted in light of a minimal clinically important difference of 2.0 cm · h. RESULTS: Nine trials (619 patients) were analyzed. When all trials were pooled, AUC pain scores ± SD at 24 to 72 h were 7.6 ± 4.9 cm · h and 6.6 ± 4.6 cm · h for nonliposomal and liposomal bupivacaine, respectively. As such, perineural liposomal bupivacaine provided a clinically unimportant benefit by improving the AUC (95% CI) of 24- to 72-h pain scores by 1.0 cm · h (0.5 to 1.6; P = 0.003) compared with nonliposomal bupivacaine. Excluding an industry-sponsored trial rendered the difference between the groups nonsignificant (0.7 cm · h [-0.1 to 1.5]; P = 0.100). Secondary outcome analysis did not uncover any additional benefits to liposomal bupivacaine in pain severity at individual timepoints up to 72 h, analgesic consumption, time to first analgesic request, opioid-related side effects, patient satisfaction, length of hospital stay, and functional recovery. No liposomal bupivacaine side effects were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Perineural liposomal bupivacaine provided a statistically significant but clinically unimportant improvement in the AUC of postoperative pain scores compared with plain local anesthetic. Furthermore, this benefit was rendered nonsignificant after excluding an industry-sponsored trial, and liposomal bupivacaine was found to be not different from plain local anesthetics for postoperative pain and all other analgesic and functional outcomes. High-quality evidence does not support the use of perineural liposomal bupivacaine over nonliposomal bupivacaine for peripheral nerve blocks.

Postoperative Analgesic Effectiveness of Quadratus Lumborum Block for Cesarean Delivery under Spinal Anesthesia.

BACKGROUND: Spinal morphine is the mainstay of postcesarean analgesia. Quadratus lumborum block has recently been proposed as an adjunct or alternative to spinal morphine. The authors evaluated the analgesic effectiveness of quadratus lumborum block in cesarean delivery with and without spinal morphine. METHODS: Randomized trials evaluating quadratus lumborum block benefits in elective cesarean delivery under spinal anesthesia were sought. Three comparisons were considered: spinal morphine versus spinal morphine and quadratus lumborum block; spinal morphine versus quadratus lumborum block; and no block or spinal morphine versus quadratus lumborum block. The two coprimary outcomes were postoperative (1) 24-h cumulative oral morphine equivalent consumption and (2) pain at 4 to 6 h. Secondary outcomes included area under the curve pain, time to analgesic request, block complications, and opioid-related side effects. RESULTS: Twelve trials (924 patients) were analyzed. The mean differences (95% CIs) in 24-h morphine consumption and pain at 4 to 6 h for spinal morphine versus spinal morphine and quadratus lumborum block comparison were 0 mg (-2 to 1) and -0.1 cm (-0.7 to 0.4), respectively, indicating no benefit. For spinal morphine versus quadratus lumborum block, these differences were 7 mg (-2 to 15) and 0.6 cm (-0.7 to 1.8), respectively, also indicating no benefit. In contrast, for no block or spinal morphine versus quadratus lumborum block, improvements of -18 mg (-28 to -7) and -1.5 cm (-2.4 to -0.6) were observed, respectively, with quadratus lumborum block. Finally, for no block or spinal morphine versus quadratus lumborum block, quadratus lumborum block improved area under the 48-h pain curve by -4.4 cm · h (-5.0 to -3.8), exceeding the clinically important threshold (3.96 cm · h), but no differences were observed in the other comparisons. CONCLUSIONS: Moderate quality evidence suggests that quadratus lumborum block does not enhance analgesic outcomes when combined with or compared with spinal morphine. However, the block improves postcesarean analgesia in the absence of spinal morphine. The clinical utility of this block seems limited to situations in which spinal morphine is not used.

Statistically significant but clinically unimportant: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the analgesic benefits of erector spinae plane block following breast cancer surgery.

The novel erector spinae plane block (ESPB) has been reported to provide important postoperative analgesic benefits following a variety of truncal and abdominal surgical procedures. However, evidence of its analgesic efficacy following breast cancer surgery, compared with parenteral analgesia, is unclear. This meta-analysis evaluates the analgesic benefits of adding ESPB to parenteral analgesia following breast cancer surgery.Databases were searched for breast tumor resection trials comparing ESPB to parenteral analgesia. The two co-primary outcomes examined were 24-hour postoperative oral morphine equivalent consumption and area-under-curve of rest pain scores. We considered reductions equivalent to 3.3 cm.h and 30 mg oral morphine in the first 24 hours postoperatively for the two co-primary outcomes, respectively, to be clinically important. We also assessed opioid-related side effects and long-term outcomes, including health-related quality of life, persistent postsurgical pain and opioid dependence. Results were pooled using random effects modeling.Twelve trials (699 patients) were analyzed. Moderate quality evidence suggested that ESPB decreased 24-hour morphine consumption and area-under-curve of rest pain by a mean difference (95% CI) of -17.60 mg (-24.27 to -10.93) and -2.74 cm.h (-3.09 to -2.39), respectively; but these differences were not clinically important. High-quality evidence suggested that ESPB decreased opioid-related side effects compared with parenteral analgesia by an OR (95% CI) of 0.43 (0.28 to 0.66). None of the studies evaluated long-term block benefits.Adding ESPB to parenteral analgesia provides statistically significant but clinically unimportant short-term benefits following breast cancer surgery. Current evidence does not support routine use of ESPB. Given the very modest short-term benefits and risk of complications, the block should be considered on a case-by-case basis.

The mornings after-periarticular liposomal bupivacaine infiltration does not improve analgesic outcomes beyond 24 hours following total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Periarticular local infiltration analgesia (LIA) is integral to multimodal analgesia following total knee arthroplasty (TKA); however, the duration of analgesia using traditional long-acting local anesthetics is often insufficient. LIA with slow-release liposomal bupivacaine may provide extended analgesia, but evidence of efficacy beyond the first 24 hours is conflicting. This meta-analysis compares the effects of periarticular liposomal and plain bupivacaine LIA on day 2 analgesic outcomes post-TKA. Trials comparing liposomal and plain bupivacaine LIA for TKA were sought. The two coprimary outcomes were (1) cumulative oral morphine equivalent consumption and (2) difference in area under the curve (AUC) of pooled rest pain scores on day 2 (24-48 hours) post-TKA. We also evaluated pain and analgesic consumption on day 3 (48-72 hours), functional recovery, length of hospital stay, patient satisfaction; and opioid-related side effects. Data were pooled using random-effects modeling. Seventeen trials (1836 patients) were analyzed. Comparing liposomal versus plain bupivacaine LIA for TKA failed to detect differences in morphine consumption and pain AUC on day 2 postoperatively, with mean differences of 0.54 mg (95% CI -5.09 to 6.18) and 0.08 cm/hour (95% CI -0.19 to 0.35), respectively (high-quality evidence). Secondary outcome analysis did not uncover any additional analgesic, functional or safety advantages to liposomal bupivacaine on postoperative day 2 or 3. Results indicate that liposomal and plain bupivacaine LIAs are not different for extended postoperative analgesic outcomes, including pain control, opioid consumption, as well as functional and safety outcomes on days 2 and 3 post-TKA. High-quality evidence does not support using liposomal bupivacaine LIA for TKA.

Optimal local anesthetic regimen for saddle block in ambulatory anorectal surgery: an evidence-based systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Ambulatory anorectal surgery requires an anesthetic of short duration but profound depth. Saddle block anesthesia (SBA) can provide dense sacral anesthesia with minimal motor blockade, but the ideal local anesthetic agent remains undefined. This systematic review aims to identify the optimal SBA regimen for ambulatory anorectal surgery. METHODS: We sought randomized trials examining SBA for ambulatory anorectal surgery and stratified patients into four subgroups according to local anesthetic type and dose: (1) longer acting, higher dose; (2) longer acting, lower dose; (3) shorter acting, higher dose; and (4) shorter acting, lower dose. Longer acting agents included bupivacaine and levobupivacaine; shorter acting agents included chloroprocaine, mepivacaine, and prilocaine. Lower dose was defined as ≤5 mg and ≤20 mg for longer and shorter acting local anesthetics, respectively. The primary outcome was time to discharge; secondary outcomes included times to sensory and motor block regression, urine voiding, and ambulation, as well as block success. RESULTS: A total of 11 trials (1063 patients) were included. Overall study quality and reporting consistency was poor. Doses ranged from 1.5-7.5 mg to 3-30 mg of longer and shorter acting local anesthetics, respectively. Hyperbaric local anesthetics were used in eight trials (953 patients, 86%). The median time to discharge appeared similar across all subgroups with an overall time of 182 (IQR 102) min. The use of long-acting, lower dose regimens was associated with a faster median time to motor block regression. Block success approached 99% among all trials. CONCLUSIONS: There is presently insufficient qualitative and quantitative evidence to identify an optimal SBA regimen for ambulatory anorectal surgery. Nonetheless, we found that doses as low as 1.5 and 3 mg of longer and shorter acting hyperbaric local anesthetics, respectively, can achieve effective and reliable SBA with timely hospital discharge. Despite similar discharge times, longer acting, lower dose local anesthetics may produce faster motor block regression following SBA for ambulatory anorectal surgery.