RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: The intertransverse process block is increasingly used to ameliorate postoperative pain following a plethora of surgical procedures involving the thoracic wall. Nevertheless, the optimal approach and cutaneous extent of the sensory block are currently unknown. We aimed to further describe the intertransverse process block, single injection versus multiple injection, and we hypothesized that the single-injection intertransverse process block is a non-inferior technique. METHODS: Twelve healthy male volunteers were cross-over randomized to receive either single-injection intertransverse process block with 21 mL ropivacaine 7.5 mg/mL, including two sham injections, at the thoracic level T4/T5 or multiple-injection intertransverse process block with three injections of 7 mL ropivacaine 7.5 mg/mL at the thoracic levels T2/T3, T4/T5 and T6/T7 at the first visit. At the second visit, the other technique was applied on the contralateral hemithorax. A non-inferiority margin of 1.5 anesthetized thoracic dermatomes was chosen. RESULTS: The mean difference (95% CI) in the number of anesthetized thoracic dermatomes was 0.82 (-0.41 to 2.05) pnon-inf<0.01 indicating non-inferiority favoring the single-injection technique.Both techniques anesthetized the ipsilateral thoracic wall and demonstrated contralateral cutaneous involvement to a variable extent. The multiple-injection intertransverse process block anesthetized a significantly larger cutaneous area on the posterior hemithorax and decreased mean arterial pressure at 30 and 60 min postblock application. Thoracic thermography showed no intermodality temperature differences yet compared with baseline temperatures both techniques showed significant differences. CONCLUSIONS: Single-injection intertransverse process block is non-inferior to multiple injection in terms of anesthetized thoracic dermatomes. Both techniques generally anesthetize the hemithoracic wall to a variable extent. EU CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTER: 2022-501312-34-01.
RESUMO
Most studies comparing vaginal breech delivery (VBD) with cesarean breech delivery (CBD) have been conducted in high-income settings. It is uncertain whether these results are applicable in a low-income setting. To assess the neonatal and maternal mortality and morbidity for singleton VBD compared to CBD in low- and lower-middle-income settings,the PubMed database was searched from January 1, 2000, to January 23, 2020 (updated April 21, 2021). Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs comparing singleton VBD with singleton CBD in low- and lower-middle-income settings reporting infant mortality were selected. Two authors independently assessed papers for eligibility and risk of bias. The primary outcome was relative risk of perinatal mortality. Meta-analysis was conducted on applicable outcomes. Eight studies (one RCT, seven observational) (12 510 deliveries) were included. VBD increased perinatal mortality (relative risk [RR] 2.67, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.82-3.91; one RCT, five observational studies, 3289 women) and risk of 5-minute Apgar score below 7 (RR 3.91, 95% CI 1.90-8.04; three observational studies, 430 women) compared to CBD. There was a higher risk of hospitalization and postpartum bleeding in CBD. Most of the studies were deemed to have moderate or serious risk of bias. CBD decreases risk of perinatal mortality but increases risk of bleeding and hospitalization.
