A meta-analysis showing the quantitative evidence base of perineural nalbuphine for wound pain from upper-limb orthopaedic trauma surgery

The adjuvant effectiveness of nalbuphine in context of brachial plexus block (BPB) in patients undergoing upper-limb orthopaedic trauma surgery has remained uncertain. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the analgesic benefit of mixing nalbuphine into local anaesthetics in BPB for wound pain from upper-limb trauma surgery. Primary outcome was the duration of analgesia. Seventeen trials (1104 patients) were analysed. Patients receiving nalbuphine have an increased weighted mean difference (WMD) 95% confidence interval of the duration of analgesia by 186.91 minutes (133.67 to 240.16) (P < 0.001). Compared to placebo, nalbuphine shorten the onset time of sensory and motor block by WMD of 2.59 (1.27 to 3.92) and 3.06 minutes (1.65 to 4.48) (P < 0.001), respectively. Meanwhile, nalbuphine prolonged the durations of sensory and motor block (P < 0.001). Qualitative and quantitative synthesis revealed no differences with regard to the outcomes related to side-effects. There is moderate-quality evidence that the addition of nalbuphine to local anaesthetics for BPB in patients undergoing upper-limb orthopaedic trauma surgery significantly prolongs the duration of analgesia, while preserving a similar safety-profile compared with local anaesthetics alone. However, these benefits should be further weighed against nalbuphine-related neurological safety in future studies.     

Effectiveness of analgesic techniques after breast surgery: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of locoregional analgesic techniques (thoracic paravertebral block (TPVB), wound infiltration (WI)) after breast surgery. STUDY DESIGN: Meta-analysis. METHODS: Searches of Medline and Cochrane were performed using the search terms "breast surgery" and "local anaesthetics" and "infiltration" or "paravertebral block". Manual searches were also performed. Two independent investigators assessed the publications and extracted the data. Inclusion criteria were randomised controlled trials that evaluated effectiveness of single-injection TPVB or WI with local anaesthetics after breast surgery. Postoperative pain scores evaluated by visual analogic scale (VAS) during the first six hours (H6), at twelve hours (H12) and incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) were collected. RESULTS: Nine studies met inclusion criteria with five trials that evaluated paravertebral block (N=253) and 4 studies that evaluated wound infiltration (N=174). TPVB decreased significantly VAS at H6 (Weighted mean difference (WMD)=-18 [-5;-32] ; P=0.007) and at H12 (WMD=-12[-20;-4] ; P=0.001) and the risk of PONV (relative risk=0.39 [0.26; 0.57] ; P<0.00001). WI did not decrease significantly VAS for postoperative pain and PONV. CONCLUSION: Single injection TPVB in contrast to WI is effective for analgesia after breast surgery and decreases PONV.     

Effects of dexmedetomidine on surgical site wound pain in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A meta-analysis

This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of dexmedetomidine as an adjuvant to local wound infiltration anaesthesia in reducing surgical site wound pain in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wanfang databases were searched from the time of database creation until February 2023. We performed a randomised controlled trial on the effect of dexmedetomidine as an adjunct to local wound infiltration anaesthesia on postoperative wound pain in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Two investigators independently screened the literature, extracted data, and evaluated the quality of each study. This study was performed using the Review Manager 5.4 software. Ultimately, 13 publications with 1062 patients were included. The results showed that dexmedetomidine was effective as an adjunct to local wound infiltration anaesthesia at 1 h (standardised mean difference [SMD]: −5.31, 95% confidence intervals [CIs]: −7.22 to −3.40, P < .001), 4 h (SMD: −3.40, P < .001), 12 h (SMD: −2.11, 95% CIs: −3.10 to −1.13, P < .001) and 24 h postoperatively (SMD: −1.98, 95% CIs: −2.76 to −1.21, P < .001) significantly reduced surgical site wound pain. However, there was no significant difference in the analgesic effect at 48 h postoperatively (SMD: −1.33, 95% CIs: −3.25 to −0.58, P = .17). Dexmedetomidine provided good postoperative wound analgesia at the surgical site when used for laparoscopic cholecystectomy.     

The effect of liposomal bupivacaine for surgical wound infiltration: A meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Liposomal bupivacaine (LB) has consistently been considered a potential analgesic for surgical wound infiltration. However, the evidence of its analgesic effectiveness remains unclear. In this meta-analysis, we attempted to identify the potential clinical role of LB wound infiltration in different surgical procedures. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing LB with non-liposomal local anaesthetics and placebos were retrieved from six electronic databases. The primary outcome was cumulative morphine equivalent consumption within 24, 48, and 72 hours after surgery. Approximately 2659 patients from 22 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Compared to the control, LB-wound infiltration did not reduce the postoperative morphine consumption at 24 hours (weighted mean difference [WMD], −0.60 mg; 97.5% confidence interval [CI], −2.78 to 1.59 mg; P = 0.54), 48 hours (WMD, −1.00 mg; 97.5% CI, −3.23 to 1.24; P = 0.32) or 72 hours (WMD, 0.50 mg; 97.5% CI, −0.67 to 1.67; P = 0.33). Similarly, secondary outcome analysis did not reveal any additional benefits of LB in any other pain-related outcomes. LB was not associated with any adverse effects. Overall, LB does not appear to improve the postoperative analgesic, rehabilitation, or safety outcomes. Current evidence does not support the routine use of LB for wound infiltration following surgical procedures.     

Intravenous administration of dexmedetomidine and quality of recovery after elective surgery in adult patients: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Study objectiveTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of pre- and perioperative intravenous administration of dexmedetomidine for enhancing quality of recovery (as measured by 40-item quality of recovery questionnaire (QoR-40), ranged from 40 to 200) after surgery.DesignMeta-analysis.SettingAdult patients undergoing elective surgery.InterventionIntravenous administration of dexmedetomidine during pre- and perioperative period.MeasurementsThe primary outcome was quality of recovery after surgery. The secondary outcome was the incidence of dexmedetomidine-related adverse events.Main resultsModerate to low quality evidence suggested that dexmedetomidine (DEX) increased the quality of recovery after surgery (WMD, weighted mean difference 15.71, 95% CI, confidence interval 0.43 to 31.00; 428 participants; 5 RCTs; low quality evidence), decreased the incidence of postoperative nauseas or vomiting (RR, risk ratio 0.60, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.83; 404 participants; 6 RCTs; moderate quality evidence; RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.55; 356 participants; 5 RCTs; moderate quality evidence) without increased risk of bradycardia (RR: 1.78, 95% CI 0.78 to 4.02; 275 participants; 4 RCTs; moderate quality evidence), dizziness (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.31 to 2.00; 183 participants; 3 RCTs; moderate quality evidence), pruritus (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.39 to 4.44; 186 participants; 3 RCTs; moderate quality evidence), hypotension requiring an intervention (RR: 1.48, 95% CI, 0.68 to 3.23; 254 participants; 3 RCTs; moderate quality evidence) and longer length of hospital stay (WMD: −0.75 days, 95% CI −1.95 to 0.44; 246 participants; 3 RCTs; low quality evidence) in early postoperative period.ConclusionsDexmedetomidine as an anesthetic adjuvant to general anesthesia was associated with an enhanced quality of recovery (15.71; far more than a clinically significant improvement of 6.3) without increased risk of adverse events in the early postoperative period (moderate to low quality evidence). Further large sample and high quality RCTs are needed to confirm the current findings.     

Use of local wound infiltration in open hepatectomy to reduce wound pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis

The aim of this study was to assess the effects of local wound infiltration anaesthesia on postoperative wound pain in patients undergoing open liver resection. The Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) and Wanfang databases were searched. The search period spanned from database creation to December 2022. All relevant studies on local wound infiltration anaesthesia for analgesia after hepatectomy were included. Two investigators independently screened the literature, extracted data and evaluated the quality of each study. Review Manager (RevMan) 5.4 software (Cochrane Collaboration) was used for the meta-analysis, in which 12 studies with 986 patients were included. The results show that local wound infiltration anaesthesia effectively reduced surgical site wound pain at 4 h (mean difference [MD]: −1.26, 95% confidence intervals [CIs]: −2.15 to −0.37, P = .005), 12 h (MD: −0.84, 95% CIs: −1.26 to −0.42, P < .001), 24 h (MD: −0.57, 95% CIs: −1.01 to −0.14, P = .009) and 48 h (MD: −0.54, 95% CIs: −0.81 to −0.26, P < .001) postoperatively; however, there was no significant difference in analgesia at 72 h postoperatively (MD: −0.10, 95% CIs: −0.80 to 0.59, P = .77). These findings suggest that local wound infiltration anaesthesia administered to patients undergoing open liver resection provides good postoperative wound analgesia at the surgical site.     

Peri-articular infiltration analgesia for shoulder surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Effective analgesic alternatives to interscalene brachial plexus block are sought for shoulder surgery. Peri-articular infiltration analgesia is a novel, less invasive technique, but evidence surrounding its use is unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate the utility of peri-articular infiltration analgesia in shoulder surgery. We searched literature for trials comparing peri-articular infiltration analgesia with control or with interscalene brachial plexus block. Control groups received no intervention, placebo or systemic opioids. The primary outcome was cumulative oral morphine equivalent consumption during the first 24 h postoperatively. Secondary outcomes included: rest pain scores up to 48 h; risk of side-effects; and durations of post-anaesthetic care unit and hospital stay. Data were pooled with random-effects modelling. Seven trials (383 patients) were included. Compared with control, peri-articular infiltration analgesia reduced 24-h oral morphine consumption by a mean difference (95%CI) of −38.0 mg (−65.5 to −10.5; p = 0.007). It also improved pain scores up to 6 h, 36 h and 48 h, with the greatest improvement observed at 0 h (−2.4 (−2.7 to −1.6); p < 0.001). Peri-articular infiltration analgesia decreased postoperative nausea and vomiting by an odds ratio (95%CI) of 0.3 (0.1–0.7; p = 0.006). In contrast, peri-articular infiltration analgesia was not different from interscalene brachial plexus block for analgesic consumption, pain scores or side-effects. This review provides moderate evidence supporting peri-articular infiltration for postoperative analgesia following shoulder surgery. The absence of difference between peri-articular infiltration analgesia and interscalene brachial plexus block for analgesic outcomes suggests that these interventions are comparable, but further trials are needed to support this conclusion and identify the optimal peri-articular infiltration technique.     

Intra-operative analgesia with remifentanil vs. dexmedetomidine: a systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis

Intra-operative remifentanil is associated with increased postoperative analgesic requirements and opioid consumption. Dexmedetomidine has characteristics suggesting it may substitute for intra-operative remifentanil during general anaesthesia, but existing literature has reported conflicting results. We undertook this meta-analysis to investigate whether general anaesthesia including dexmedetomidine would result in less postoperative pain than general anaesthesia including remifentanil. The MEDLINE and PubMed electronic databases were searched up to October 2018. Only randomised trials including patients receiving general anaesthesia and comparing dexmedetomidine with remifentanil administration were included. Meta-analyses were performed mostly employing a random effects model. The primary outcome was pain score at rest (visual analogue scale, 0–10) at two postoperative hours. The secondary outcomes included: pain score at rest at 24 postoperative hours; opioid consumption at 2 and 24 postoperative hours; and rates of hypotension, bradycardia, shivering and postoperative nausea and vomiting. Twenty-one randomised trials, including 1309 patients, were identified. Pain scores at rest at two postoperative hours were lower in the dexmedetomidine group, with a mean difference (95%CI) of −0.7 (−1.2 to −0.2), I² = 85%, p = 0.004, and a moderate quality of evidence. Secondary pain outcomes were also significantly better in the dexmedetomidine group. Rates of hypotension, shivering and postoperative nausea and vomiting were at least twice as frequent in patients who received remifentanil. Time to analgesia request was longer, and use of postoperative morphine and rescue analgesia were less, with dexmedetomidine, whereas episodes of bradycardia were similar between groups. There is moderate evidence that intra-operative dexmedetomidine during general anaesthesia improves pain outcomes during the first 24 postoperative hours, when compared with remifentanil, with fewer side effects.     

Intra-articular infiltration analgesia for arthroscopic shoulder surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Phrenic-sparing analgesic techniques for shoulder surgery are desirable. Intra-articular infiltration analgesia is one promising phrenic-sparing modality, but its role remains unclear because of conflicting evidence of analgesic efficacy and theoretical concerns regarding chondrotoxicity. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the benefits and risks of intra-articular infiltration in arthroscopic shoulder surgery compared with systemic analgesia or interscalene brachial plexus block. We sought randomised controlled trials comparing intra-articular infiltration with interscalene brachial plexus block or systemic analgesia (control). Cumulative 24-h postoperative oral morphine equivalent consumption was designated as the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included visual analogue scale pain scores during the first 24 h postoperatively; time-to-first analgesic request; patient satisfaction; opioid-related side-effects; block-related adverse events; and any indicators of chondrotoxicity. Fifteen trials (863 patients) were included. Compared with control, intra-articular infiltration reduced 24-h postoperative analgesic consumption by a weighted mean difference (95%CI) of −30.9 ([−38.9 to −22.9]; p < 0.001). Intra-articular infiltration also reduced the weighted mean difference (95%CI) pain scores up to 12 h postoperatively, with the greatest reduction at 4 h (−2.2 cm [(−4.4 to −0.04]); p < 0.05). Compared with interscalene brachial plexus block, there was no difference in opioid consumption, but patients receiving interscalene brachial plexus block had better pain scores at 2, 4 and 24 h postoperatively. There was no difference in opioid- or block-related adverse events, and none of the trials reported chondrotoxic effects. Compared with systemic analgesia, intra-articular infiltration provides superior pain control, reduces opioid consumption and enhances patient satisfaction, but it may be inferior to interscalene brachial plexus block patients having arthroscopic shoulder surgery.     

The efficacy of preemptive analgesia for acute postoperative pain management: a meta-analysis

Whether preemptive analgesic interventions are more effective than conventional regimens in managing acute postoperative pain remains controversial. We systematically searched for randomized controlled trials that specifically compared preoperative analgesic interventions with similar postoperative analgesic interventions via the same route. The retrieved reports were stratified according to five types of analgesic interventions: epidural analgesia, local anesthetic wound infiltration, systemic N-methyl-d-aspartic acid (NMDA) receptor antagonists, systemic nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and systemic opioids. The primary outcome measures analyzed were the pain intensity scores, supplemental analgesic consumption, and time to first analgesic consumption. Sixty-six studies with data from 3261 patients were analyzed. Data were combined by using a fixed-effect model, and the effect size index (ES) used was the standardized mean difference. When the data from all three outcome measures were combined, the ES was most pronounced for preemptive administration of epidural analgesia (ES, 0.38; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.28-0.47), local anesthetic wound infiltration (ES, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.17-0.40), and NSAID administration (ES, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.27-0.48). Whereas preemptive epidural analgesia resulted in consistent improvements in all three outcome variables, preemptive local anesthetic wound infiltration and NSAID administration improved analgesic consumption and time to first rescue analgesic request, but not postoperative pain scores. The least proof of efficacy was found in the case of systemic NMDA antagonist (ES, 0.09; 95% CI, -0.03 to 0.22) and opioid (ES, -0.10; 95% CI, -0.26 to 0.07) administration, and the results remain equivocal.     

Better late than never? Impact of local analgesia timing on postoperative pain in laparoscopic surgery: a systematic review and metaanalysis

Background

This study aimed to determine the effect of local anesthesia administered before laparoscopic surgery (preemptive anesthesia) on postoperative pain.

Methods

The authors searched Medline, EMBase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, as well as reference lists of textbooks and relevant articles. They contacted experts in the field of anesthesia and laparoscopic surgery for randomized controlled trials comparing preemptive administration of local anesthesia at the incision site or intraperitoneally with postoperative anesthesia administration or placebo. Trials were systematically assessed for eligibility and validity, and data were extracted in duplicate. The data were pooled across studies using a random effects model.

Results

The 26 studies that met the inclusion criteria were included in the analysis. Preemptive incisional local anesthetic was superior to placebo in terms of visual analog pain scores (VAS) at 4 h (weighted mean difference [WMD], ?9.49 mm; 95% confidence interval [CI], ?15.50 to ?3.48) and 24 h (WMD, ?4.75 mm; 95%CI, ?8.90 to 0.60). However, no difference was found between these measures and those for postoperative incision-site infiltration. Preemptive intraperitoneal local anesthetic was superior to placebo in terms of VAS at 4 h (WMD, 5.76 mm; 95%CI, ?11.27 to ?0.25), 8 h (WMD, ?9.64 mm; 95%CI, ?13.68 to ?5.60), 12 h (WMD, ?4.68 mm; 95%CI, ?5.86 to ?3.49), and 24 h (WMD, ?5.57 mm; 95%CI, ?8.35 to ?2.79), and superior to postoperative anesthesia administration at 8 h (WMD, ?7.42; 95%CI, ?13.40 to ?1.45), 12 h (WMD, ?7.27 mm; 95%CI, ?10.26 to ?4.28), and 24 h (WMD, ?7.95 mm; 95%CI, ?12.33 to ?3.56).

Conclusion

Preemptive administration of local anesthetic at the incision site reduces postoperative pain compared with placebo but achieves an analgesic effect similar to that of postincisional anesthetic infiltration. Preemptive local anesthetic administered intraperitoneally decreases postoperative pain compared with both placebo and postoperative infiltration. Surgeons should use local analgesia in laparoscopic surgery to decrease postoperative pain, but the timing of administration is significant only for intraperitoneal infiltration.     

Transversus abdominis plane block versus local anesthetic wound infiltration for optimal analgesia after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis

BackgroundBoth transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block and local anesthetic wound infiltration have been used to relieve pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. We undertook this systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis to determine the best analgesic technique.MethodsWe systematically searched the literature for trials comparing TAP block with wound infiltration after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The primary outcome was pain score during rest (analogue scale, 0–10) at 2 postoperative hours. Secondary pain-related outcomes included pain scores during rest at 12 and 24 h, pain scores during movement and intravenous morphine consumption at 2, 12 and 24 h, and postoperative nausea and vomiting. Other secondary outcomes sought were block-related complications such as rates of postoperative infection, hematoma, visceral injury and local anesthetic systemic toxicity.ResultsTen trials including 668 patients were identified. There was a significant difference in pain score during rest at 2 postoperative hours in favour of TAP block when compared with wound infiltration (mean difference [95%CI]: −0.7 [−1.2, −0.2]; I2 = 71%; p = 0.008). Pain scores during rest at 12 and 24 h and pain scores during movement at 24 h were also significantly lower with TAP block than wound infiltration. Postoperative morphine consumption and the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting were significantly lower in patients who received a TAP block. Data were insufficient to compare block-related complications. The overall quality of evidence was moderate-to-high.ConclusionsThere is moderate-to-high level evidence that the TAP block provides superior analgesia when compared with wound infiltration in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.Trial registry number: PROSPERO CRD42020208057.     

Perineural and intravenous dexamethasone and dexmedetomidine: network meta-analysis of adjunctive effects on supraclavicular brachial plexus block

Both perineural and intravenous dexamethasone and dexmedetomidine are used as local anaesthetic adjuncts to enhance peripheral nerve block characteristics. However, the effects of dexamethasone and dexmedetomidine based on their administration routes have not been directly compared, and the relative extent to which each adjunct prolongs sensory blockade remains unclear. This network meta-analysis sought to compare and rank the effects of perineural and intravenous dexamethasone and dexmedetomidine as supraclavicular block adjuncts. We sought randomised trials investigating the effects of adding perineural and intravenous dexamethasone or dexmedetomidine to long-acting local anaesthetics on supraclavicular block characteristics, including time to block onset and durations of sensory, motor and analgesic blockade. Data were compared and ranked according to relative effectiveness for each outcome. Our primary outcome was sensory block duration, with a 2-h difference considered clinically important. We performed a frequentist analysis, using the GRADE framework to appraise evidence. One-hundred trials (5728 patients) were included. Expressed as mean (95%CI), the control group (local anaesthetic alone) had a duration of sensory block of 401 (366–435) min, motor block duration of 369 (330–408) min and analgesic duration of 435 (386-483) min. Compared with control, sensory block was prolonged most by intravenous dexamethasone [mean difference (95%CI) 477 (160–795) min], followed by perineural dexamethasone [411 (343–480) min] and perineural dexmedetomidine [284 (235–333) min]. Motor block was prolonged most by perineural dexamethasone [mean difference (95%CI) 294 (236–352) min], followed by intravenous dexamethasone [289 (129–448)min] and perineural dexmedetomidine [258 (212–304)min]. Analgesic duration was prolonged most by perineural dexamethasone [mean difference (95%CI) 518 (448–589) min], followed by intravenous dexamethasone [478 (277–679) min] and perineural dexmedetomidine [318 (266–371) min]. Intravenous dexmedetomidine did not prolong sensory, motor or analgesic block durations. No major network inconsistencies were found. The quality of evidence for intravenous dexamethasone, perineural dexamethasone and perineural dexmedetomidine for prolongation of supraclavicular sensory block duration was 'low', 'very low' and 'low', respectively. Regardless of route, dexamethasone as an adjunct prolonged the durations of sensory and analgesic blockade to a greater extent than dexmedetomidine. Differences in block characteristics between perineural and intravenous dexamethasone were not clinically important. Intravenous dexmedetomidine did not affect block characteristics.     

Antibiotic-loaded bone substitutes therapy in the management of the moderate to severe diabetic foot infection: A meta-analysis

In recent years, local antibiotic-loaded bone substitutes (ALBS) have been used increasingly in the treatment of diabetic foot infection (DFI). The meta-analysis aimed to analyse the efficacy of ALBS on patients with moderate to severe DFI (with or without osteomyelitis). With an appropriate search strategy, 7 studies were selected for analysis (2 RCTs and 5 cohort studies). The result showed that the application of ALBS effectively reduced the length of hospital stay (WMD −5.55; 95% CI: −9.85 to −1.26; P = 0.01), the recurrence rates (RR 0.33; 95% CI: 0.15 to 0.69; P = 0.003) and the mortality rates (RR 0.22; 95% CI: 0.06 to 0.82; P = 0.02). Compared to the control groups , however, there was no difference in healing rates (RR 1.06; 95% CI: 0.96 to 1.18; P = 0.26), healing time (WMD −1.44; 95% CI: −3.37 to −0.49; P = 0.14), the number of debridement (WMD −1.98; 95% CI: −4.08 to 0.12; P = 0.06) and major amputation rates (RR 0.76; 95% CI: 0.35 to 1.61; P = 0.47). The ALBS appears to have some beneficial effects as an adjunct to standard surgery in the treatment of DFI with or without osteomyelitis, as it reduces recurrence rates, mortality rates, and length of hospital stay, but there was no statistically significant difference in enhancing wound healing.     

The efficacy and safety of fractional CO2 laser therapy in the treatment of burn scars: A meta-analysis

Although we have numerous publications about the effect of fractional CO₂ laser therapy for burn scars, quantitative data about its efficacy and safety are sparse. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to assess the efficacy and safety of fractional CO₂ laser therapy for the treatment of burn scars. Pertinent studies were identified by a search of PubMed, Embase and Web of Science up to 20 September 2020. Weighted mean difference (WMD) was conducted to combine the results, and a random-effect model was used to pool the results. Publication bias was estimated using Begg and Egger’s regression asymmetry test. Twenty articles were included. Our pooled results suggested that fractional CO₂ laser therapy significantly improved the Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) score (WMD = −3.24, 95%CI: −4.30, −2.18; P < 0.001). Moreover, the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS)-patient (WMD = −14.05, 95%CI: −22.44, −5.65; P = 0.001) and Observer (WMD = −6.31, 95%CI: −8.48, −4.15; P < 0.001) also showed significant improvements with the treatment of fractional CO₂ laser therapy. Fractional CO₂ laser significantly reduced scar thickness measured with ultrasonography (WMD = −0.54, 95%CI: −0.97, −0.10; P < 0.001). For other outcomes, including pigmentation, vascularity, pliability, and height of scar, vascularity and relief, laser therapy was associated with significant improvements. However, only the cutometer measure R2 (scar elasticity) (WMD = −0.06, 95%CI: −0.10, −0.01; P = 0.023) was significantly improved with the laser therapy, but cutometer measures R0 (scar firmness) (WMD = 0.03, 95%CI: −0.04, 0.09; P = 0.482) was not. Side effects and complications induced by fractional CO₂ laser were mild and tolerable. Fractional CO₂ laser therapy significantly improved both the signs and symptoms of burn scars. Considering potential limitations, more large-scale, well-designed RCTs are needed to verify our findings.     

Analgesic efficacy of the Pecs II block: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Surgery is the primary therapeutic intervention for breast cancer and can result in significant postoperative pain. We searched the current literature and performed a meta-analysis in order to compare the analgesic efficacy of the pectoral type-2 (Pecs II) block with systemic analgesia alone and with a thoracic paravertebral block for breast cancer surgery. Primary outcome was postoperative opioid consumption in the first 24 h after surgery. Secondary outcomes were pain scores at 0, 3, 6, 9 and 24 h after surgery, intra-operative opioid consumption, time to first analgesic request and incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting. We identified 13 randomised controlled trials that included 815 patients. The Pecs II block significantly reduced postoperative opioid consumption (standardised difference in means: −13.64 mg oral morphine equivalents; 95%CI: −21.22 to −6.05; p < 0.01) and acute postoperative pain at all intervals in the first 24 h after surgery compared with systemic analgesia alone. Compared with the thoracic paravertebral block, the Pecs II block resulted in similar postoperative opioid consumption (standardised difference in means: −8.73 mg oral morphine equivalents; 95%CI: −18.16 to 0.69; p = 0.07) and postoperative pain scores after first measurement. In conclusion, the Pecs II block offers improved analgesic efficacy compared with systemic analgesia alone and comparable analgesic efficacy to a thoracic paravertebral block for breast cancer surgery.     

Efficacy of regional blocks or local anaesthetic infiltration for analgesia after caesarean delivery: a network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Caesarean delivery is common and can cause severe postoperative pain but injection of local anaesthetic at various sites for regional blocks or local anaesthetic infiltration may reduce this. We aimed to compare and rank these sites. We searched PubMed, Google Scholar, EMBASE and CENTRAL to June 2021 for randomised controlled trials and performed a random-effects Bayesian model network meta-analysis. The primary outcome was dose of parenteral morphine equivalents in the first 24 postoperative hours. We used surface under cumulative ranking probabilities to order techniques. We analysed 114 trials (8730 participants). The ordered mean (95% credible interval) reduction in morphine equivalents, from 34 mg with placebo, were as follows: ilio-inguinal 15 (1–32) mg; ilio-inguinal–iliohypogastric 13 (6–19) mg; transversalis fascia 11 (4–26) mg; erector spinae 11 (10–32); transverse abdominis 9 (4–13) mg; wound catheter infusion 8 (2–15) mg; quadratus lumborum 8 (1–15) mg; wound infiltration 8 (2–13) mg; and no intervention −4 (−10 to 2) mg. Ordered efficacies for injection sites were different for other relevant outcomes, including pain (to 4–6 h and to 24 h) and time to rescue analgesia: there was no single preferred route of injection. The ordered mean (95% credible interval) reduction in dynamic pain scores (0–10 scale) at 24 h compared with placebo were as follows: wound infusion 1.2 (0.2–2.1); erector spinae 1.3 (−0.5 to 3.1); quadratus lumborum 1.0 (0.1–1.8); ilio-inguinal–iliohypogastric 0.6 (−0.5 to 1.8); transverse abdominis 0.6 (−0.1 to 1.2); wound infiltration 0.5 (−0.3 to 1.3); transversalis fascia −0.8 (−3.4 to 1.9); ilio-inguinal −0.9 (−3.6 to 1.7); and no intervention −0.8 (−1.8 to 0.2). We categorised our confidence in effect sizes as low or very low.     

Comparison of adjuvant pharmaceuticals for caudal block in pediatric lower abdominal and urological surgeries: A network meta-analysis

Study objectiveCaudal block helps relieve pain after sub-umbilical surgery in pediatric patients; however, the duration for which it exerts its analgesic effect is limited. The addition of certain adjuvant agents to local anesthetics (LAs) that are used to administer caudal block can prolong postoperative analgesia. Therefore, we aimed to compare the efficiencies and side effects of caudal adjuvants in the settings of pediatric lower abdominal and urological surgeries.DesignA network meta-analysis (NMA).PatientsOne hundred and twelve randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 6800 pediatric patients were included in the final analysis.InterventionsDifferent adjuvant agents, namely clonidine, dexamethasone, dexmedetomidine, fentanyl, ketamine, magnesium, midazolam, morphine, neostigmine, and tramadol.MeasurementsThe primary outcome was the duration of analgesia. The secondary outcomes included the requirement for additional analgesia, analgesic consumption, and postoperative complications. The effects and rankings were evaluated using NMA and the surface under the cumulative ranking curve scores, respectively.ResultsNeostigmine, dexmedetomidine, and dexamethasone were found to be the three most effective adjuvants that prolong the duration of analgesia for caudal block, and these adjuvants extended this duration by 8.9 h (95% confidence interval [CI], 7.1–10.7), 7.3 h (95% CI, 6.0–8.6), and 5.9 h (95% CI, 4.0–7.7), respectively. Caudal neostigmine was associated with an increase in the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting, whereas dexmedetomidine and dexamethasone showed no postoperative complications.ConclusionsThis NMA provided evidence and suggested that dexmedetomidine and dexamethasone may be the most beneficial adjuvant pharmaceutics adding to LAs for caudal block in children. However, given the off-label status of caudal dexmedetomidine and dexamethasone, further high-quality RCTs are still warranted, especially to determine whether delayed neurological complications will occur.     

Dexmedetomidine reduces postoperative pain and speeds recovery after bariatric surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BackgroundDexmedetomidine in opioid-sparing analgesia promotes enhanced recovery and improves postoperative outcomes.ObjectivesThis study aimed to explore the safety and efficacy of dexmedetomidine in bariatric surgery.SettingMeta-analysis.MethodsWe selected studies from Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials before 20 April, 2021. The primary outcomes were pain scores and intravenous morphine equivalents (IVME) in the post anesthesia care unit (PACU) and postoperative day 1 (POD1). The secondary outcomes included postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), the length of hospital stay (LOS), intraoperative mean arterial pressure (MAP) and heart rate (HR).ResultsWe extracted 697 participants from 10 randomized controlled trials. Dexmedetomidine reduced PACU pain scores (MD = ?1.51, 95% confidence interval [CI]: ?2.60 to ?.42) after bariatric surgery, especially laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (MD = ?3.05, 95%CI: ?3.77 to ?2.33), but it did not affect POD1 pain scores (MD = .20, 95%CI: ?.85 to 1.26). Dexmedetomidine can reduce PACU IVME (MD = ?4.29, 95%CI: ?6.59 to ?1.99), but does not reduce POD1 IVME (MD = ?.36, 95%CI: ?2.41 to 1.68). In addition, dexmedetomidine significantly reduced PONV both in PACU (OR = .28, 95%CI: .14–.54) and POD1 (OR = .24, 95%CI: .14–.4), shortened LOS (MD = ?.29, 95%CI: ?.49 to ?.10), and had little effect on intraoperative MAP (MD = ?6.64, 95%CI: ?9.52 to ?3.76) and HR (MD = ?4.8, 95%CI: ?11.55 to 1.94).ConclusionIn conclusion, the use of dexmedetomidine in opioid-sparing analgesia contributes to postoperative analgesia after bariatric surgery, but the heterogeneity was high. In addition, dexmedetomidine is beneficial for enhanced recovery.     

Clinical analgesic efficacy and side effects of dexmedetomidine in the early postoperative period after arthroscopic knee surgery

STUDY OBJECTIVES: To determine the analgesic efficacy of dexmedetomidine in the early postoperative period. DESIGN: Randomized, double-blind, double placebo-controlled clinical trial. SETTING: University medical center. PATIENTS: 30 ASA physical status I, II, and III patients with cruciate ligament lesion and joint fibrosis who were scheduled for knee arthroscopy. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were prospectively randomized to receive dexmedetomidine one mcg/kg(-1) intravenously (IV), for 10 minutes followed by dexmedetomidine 0.3 mcg/kg(-1) for 50 minutes or propacetamol two g, IV, for 10 minutes. MEASUREMENTS: Pain scores, time to onset analgesia, and morphine consumption were measured. Open-label rescue morphine 5 mg IV was available as needed during the postdosing evaluation period of 8 hours. Hemodynamic data, sedation scores, and renal and hepatic function were assessed for control of adverse events. MAIN RESULTS: Pain scores with dexmedetomidine and propacetamol were similar. There were no differences in the number of patients who required supplemental rescue analgesia (7/15 vs 4/15; P = 0.44), but total morphine requirements were higher with dexmedetomidine (45 mg) versus propacetamol (20 mg) in the 8-hour follow-up (P < 0.05). The most frequent adverse events with dexmedetomidine were bradycardia and hypertension. CONCLUSIONS: Dexmedetomidine provides a modest analgesic effect after knee arthroscopy, but the side effects of this drug, such as hypertension and bradycardia, may restrict the use of large bolus doses.