Dataset Information

Continuous peripheral nerve blocks compared to thoracic epidurals or multimodal analgesia for midline laparotomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Continuous peripheral nerve blocks (CPNBs) have been investigated to control pain for abdominal surgery via midline laparotomy while avoiding the adverse events of opioid or epidural analgesia. The review compiles the evidence comparing CPNBs to multimodal and epidural analgesia.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review using broad search terms in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane. Primary outcomes were pain scores and cumulative opioid consumption at 48 hours. Secondary outcomes were length of stay and postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). We rated the quality of the evidence using Cochrane and GRADE recommendations. The results were synthesized by meta-analysis using Revman.

Results

Our final selection included 26 studies (1,646 patients). There was no statistically significant difference in pain control comparing CPNBs to either multimodal or epidural analgesia (low quality evidence). Less opioids were consumed when receiving epidural analgesia than CPNBs (mean difference [MD]: -16.13, 95% CI [-32.36, 0.10]), low quality evidence) and less when receiving CPNBs than multimodal analgesia (MD: -31.52, 95% CI [-42.81, -20.22], low quality evidence). The length of hospital stay was shorter when receiving epidural analgesia than CPNBs (MD: -0.78 days, 95% CI [-1.29, -0.27], low quality evidence) and shorter when receiving CPNBs than multimodal analgesia (MD: -1.41 days, 95% CI [-2.45, -0.36], low quality evidence). There was no statistically significant difference in PONV comparing CPNBs to multimodal (high quality evidence) or epidural analgesia (moderate quality evidence).

Conclusions

CPNBs should be considered a viable alternative to epidural analgesia when contraindications to epidural placement exist for patients undergoing midline laparotomies.

SUBMITTER: Bailey JG

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8497905 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Hip arthroplasty frequently requires potent postoperative analgesia, often provided with an epidural or posterior lumbar plexus local anesthetic infusion. However, American Society of Regional Anesthesia guidelines now recommend against epidural and continuous posterior lumbar plexus blocks during administration of various perioperative anticoagulants often administered after hip arthroplasty. A continuous femoral nerve block is a possible analgesic alternative, but whether it provides comparable analgesia to a continuous posterior lumbar plexus block after hip arthroplasty remains unclear. We therefore tested the hypothesis that differing the catheter insertion site (femoral versus posterior lumbar plexus) after hip arthroplasty has no impact on postoperative analgesia.Preoperatively, subjects undergoing hip arthroplasty were randomly assigned to receive either a femoral or a posterior lumbar plexus stimulating catheter inserted 5 to 15 cm or 0 to 1 cm past the needle tip, respectively. Postoperatively, patients received perineural ropivacaine, 0.2% (basal 6 mL/hr, bolus 4 mL, 30-minute lockout) for at least 2 days. The primary end point was the average daily pain scores as measured with a numeric rating scale (0-10) recorded in the 24-hour period beginning at 07:30 the morning after surgery, excluding twice-daily physical therapy sessions. Secondary end points included pain during physical therapy, ambulatory distance, and supplemental analgesic requirements during the same 24-hour period, as well as satisfaction with analgesia during hospitalization.The mean (SD) pain scores for subjects receiving a femoral infusion (n = 25) were 3.6 (1.8) versus 3.5 (1.8) for patients receiving a posterior lumbar plexus infusion (n = 22), resulting in a group difference of 0.1 (95% confidence interval -0.9 to 1.2; P = 0.78). Because the confidence interval was within a prespecified -1.6 to 1.6 range, we conclude that the effect of the 2 analgesic techniques on postoperative pain was equivalent. Similarly, we detected no differences between the 2 treatments with respect to the secondary end points, with one exception: subjects with a femoral catheter ambulated a median (10th-90th percentiles) 2 (0-17) m the morning after surgery, in comparison with 11 (0-31) m for subjects with a posterior lumbar plexus catheter (data nonparametric; P = 0.02).After hip arthroplasty, a continuous femoral nerve block is an acceptable analgesic alternative to a continuous posterior lumbar plexus block when using a stimulating perineural catheter. However, early ambulatory ability suffers with a femoral infusion.

Project description:BackgroundVarious nerve blocks with local anaesthetic agents have been used to reduce pain after hip fracture and subsequent surgery. This review was published originally in 1999 and was updated in 2001, 2002, 2009 and 2017.ObjectivesThis review focuses on the use of peripheral nerves blocks as preoperative analgesia, as postoperative analgesia or as a supplement to general anaesthesia for hip fracture surgery. We undertook the update to look for new studies and to update the methods to reflect Cochrane standards.Search methodsFor the updated review, we searched the following databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 8), MEDLINE (Ovid SP, 1966 to August week 1 2016), Embase (Ovid SP, 1988 to 2016 August week 1) and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (EBSCO, 1982 to August week 1 2016), as well as trial registers and reference lists of relevant articles.Selection criteriaWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving use of nerve blocks as part of the care provided for adults aged 16 years and older with hip fracture.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors independently assessed new trials for inclusion, determined trial quality using the Cochrane tool and extracted data. When appropriate, we pooled results of outcome measures. We rated the quality of evidence according to the GRADE Working Group approach.Main resultsWe included 31 trials (1760 participants; 897 randomized to peripheral nerve blocks and 863 to no regional blockade). Results of eight trials with 373 participants show that peripheral nerve blocks reduced pain on movement within 30 minutes of block placement (standardized mean difference (SMD) -1.41, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.14 to -0.67; equivalent to -3.4 on a scale from 0 to 10; I2 = 90%; high quality of evidence). Effect size was proportionate to the concentration of local anaesthetic used (P < 0.00001). Based on seven trials with 676 participants, we did not find a difference in the risk of acute confusional state (risk ratio (RR) 0.69, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.27; I2 = 48%; very low quality of evidence). Three trials with 131 participants reported decreased risk for pneumonia (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.89; I2 = 3%; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 7, 95% CI 5 to 72; moderate quality of evidence). We did not find a difference in risk of myocardial ischaemia or death within six months, but the number of participants included was well below the optimal information size for these two outcomes. Two trials with 155 participants reported that peripheral nerve blocks also reduced time to first mobilization after surgery (mean difference -11.25 hours, 95% CI -14.34 to -8.15 hours; I2 = 52%; moderate quality of evidence). One trial with 75 participants indicated that the cost of analgesic drugs was lower when they were given as a single shot block (SMD -3.48, 95% CI -4.23 to -2.74; moderate quality of evidence).Authors' conclusionsHigh-quality evidence shows that regional blockade reduces pain on movement within 30 minutes after block placement. Moderate-quality evidence shows reduced risk for pneumonia, decreased time to first mobilization and cost reduction of the analgesic regimen (single shot blocks).

Project description:BackgroundRectus sheath catheter analgesia (RSCA) and thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA) are both used for analgesia following laparotomy. The aim was to compare the analgesic effectiveness of RSCA with TEA after laparotomy for elective colorectal and urological surgery.MethodsPatients undergoing elective midline laparotomy were randomized in a non-blinded fashion to receive RSCA or TEA for postoperative analgesia at a single UK teaching hospital. The primary quantitative outcome measure was dynamic pain score at 24 h after surgery. A nested qualitative study (reported elsewhere) explored the dual primary outcome of patient experience and acceptability. Secondary outcome measures included rest and movement pain scores over 72 h, functional analgesia, analgesia satisfaction, opiate consumption, functional recovery, morbidity, safety, and cost-effectiveness.ResultsA total of 131 patients were randomized: 66 in the RSCA group and 65 in the TEA group. The median (interquartile range; i.q.r.) dynamic pain score at 24 h was significantly lower after TEA than RSCA (33 (11-60) versus 50.5 (24.50-77.25); P = 0.018). Resting pain score at 72 h was significantly lower after RSCA (4.5 (0.25-13.75) versus 12.5 (2-13); P = 0.019). Opiate consumption on postoperative day 3 (median (i.q.r.) morphine equivalent 17 (10-30) mg versus 40 (13.25-88.50) mg; P = 0.038), hypotension, or vasopressor dependency (29.7 versus 49.2 per cent; P = 0.023) and weight gain to day 3 (median (i.q.r.) 0 (-1-2) kg versus 1 (0-3) kg; P = 0.046) were all significantly greater after TEA, compared with RSCA. There were no significant differences between groups in other secondary outcomes, although more participants experienced serious adverse events after TEA compared with RSCA, which was also the more cost-effective.ConclusionsTEA provided superior initial postoperative analgesia but only for the first 24 h. By 72 hours RSCA provides superior analgesia, is associated with a lower incidence of unwanted effects, and may be more cost-effective.