Dataset Information

Perineural versus intravenous dexamethasone as an adjuvant in regional anesthesia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Dexamethasone is a common adjuvant for local anesthetics in regional anesthesia, but the optimal route of administration is controversial. Therefore, we did a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to assess the effect of perineural versus intravenous dexamethasone on local anesthetic regional nerve-blockade outcomes.

Materials and methods

Medline (through PubMed), Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science, and Biosis Previews databases were systematically searched (published from inception of each database to January 1, 2017) to identify randomized controlled trials. The data of the selected trials were statistically analyzed to find any significant differences between the two modalities. The primary outcome was the duration of analgesia. Secondary outcomes included duration of motor block, postoperative nausea and vomiting, and postoperative analgesic dose at 24 hours. We conducted a planned subgroup analysis to compare the effects between adding epinephrine or not.

Results

Ten randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria of our analysis, with a total of 749 patients. Without the addition of epinephrine, the effects of perineural and intravenous dexamethasone were equivalent concerning the duration of analgesia (mean difference 0.03 hours, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.24). However, with the addition of epinephrine, the analgesic duration of perineural dexamethasone versus intravenous dexamethasone was prolonged (mean difference 3.96 hours, 95% CI 2.66-5.27). Likewise, the impact of epinephrine was the same on the duration of motor block. The two routes of administration did not show any significant differences in the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting, nor on postoperative analgesic consumption at 24 hours.

Conclusion

Our results show that perineural dexamethasone can prolong the effects of analgesic duration when compared to the intravenous route, only when epinephrine is coadministered. Without epinephrine, the two modalities show equivalent effect as adjuvants on regional anesthesia.

SUBMITTER: Zhao WL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5505162 | biostudies-literature | 2017

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Perineural versus intravenous dexamethasone as an adjuvant in regional anesthesia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Zhao Wen-Ling WL Ou Xiao-Feng XF Liu Jin J Zhang Wen-Sheng WS

Journal of pain research 20170704

<h4>Background</h4>Dexamethasone is a common adjuvant for local anesthetics in regional anesthesia, but the optimal route of administration is controversial. Therefore, we did a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to assess the effect of perineural versus intravenous dexamethasone on local anesthetic regional nerve-blockade outcomes.<h4>Materials and methods</h4>Medline (through PubMed), Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science, and Biosis Previews databases were systemat ...[more]

PMID: 28740419

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo compare the effectiveness and safety of regional anesthesia (RA) and general anesthesia (GA) for percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL).Patients and methodsPubMed, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, and the Web of Knowledge databases were systematically searched to identify relevant studies. After literature screening and data extraction, a meta-analysis was performed using the RevMan 5.3 software.ResultsEight randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and six non-randomized controlled trials (nRCTs) involving 2270 patients were included. Patients receiving RA were associated with shorter operative time (-6.22 min; 95%CI, -9.70 to -2.75; p = 0.0005), lower visual analgesic score on the first and third postoperative day (WMD, -2.62; 95%CI, -3.04 to -2.19; p < 0.00001 WMD, -0.38; 95%CI, -0.58 to -0.18; p = 0.0002), less analgesic requirements (WMD, -59.40 mg; 95%CI, -78.39 to -40.40; p<0.00001), shorter hospitalization (WMD, -0.36d; 95%CI, -0.66 to -0.05; p = 0.02), less blood transfusion (RR, 0.61; 95%CI, 0.41 to 0.93; p = 0.02), fewer modified Clavion-Dindo Grade II (RR, 0.56; 95%CI, 0.37 to 0.83; p = 0.005), Grade III or above postoperative complications (RR, 0.51; 95%CI, 0.33 to 0.77; p = 0.001), and potential benefits of less fever (RR, 0.79; 95%CI, 0.61 to 1.02; p = 0.07), nausea or vomiting (RR, 0.54; 95%CI, 0.20 to 1.46; p = 0.23), whereas more intraoperative hypotension (RR, 3.13; 95%CI, 1.76 to 5.59; p = 0.0001) when compared with patients receiving GA. When nRCTs were excluded, most of the results were stable but the significant differences were no longer detectable in blood transfusion, Grade II and more severe complications. No significant difference in the total postoperative complications and stone-free rate were found.ConclusionsCurrent evidence suggests that both RA and GA can provide safe and effective anesthesia for PNL in carefully evaluated and selected patients. Each anesthesia technique has its own advantages but some aspects still remain unclear and need to be explored in future studies.

Dataset Information

Perineural versus intravenous dexamethasone as an adjuvant in regional anesthesia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Perineural versus intravenous dexamethasone as an adjuvant in regional anesthesia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets