While a large number of studies has examined the efficacy of opioid-sparing analgesics in adult surgical populations, fewer studies are available to guide postoperative pain treatment in pediatric patients. We systematically reviewed available publications on the use of systemic nonopioid agents for postoperative analgesia in pediatric surgical populations. A comprehensive literature search identified meta-analyses and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of systemic, nonopioid agents on postoperative narcotic requirements or pain scores in pediatric surgical populations. If a meta-analysis was located, we summarized its results and any RCTs published after it. We located and reviewed 11 acetaminophen RCTs, 1 nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) meta-analysis, 2 NSAID RCTs, 1 dexamethasone meta-analysis, 3 dexamethasone RCTs, 2 ketamine meta-analyses, 5 ketamine RCTs, 2 gabapentin RCTs, 1 clonidine meta-analysis, 3 magnesium RCTs, 2 dexmedetomidine meta-analyses, and 1 dextromethorphan RCT. No meta-analyses or RCTs were found assessing the perioperative efficacy of intravenous lidocaine, amantadine, pregabalin, esmolol, or caffeine in pediatric surgical patients. The available evidence is limited, but suggests that perioperative acetaminophen, NSAIDs, dexamethasone, ketamine, clonidine, and dexmedetomidine may decrease postoperative pain and opioid consumption in some pediatric surgical populations. Not enough, or no, data exist from which to draw conclusions on the perioperative use of gabapentin, magnesium, dextromethorphan, lidocaine, amantadine, pregabalin, esmolol, and caffeine in pediatric surgical patients. Further pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamics studies to establish both the clinical benefit and efficacy of nonopioid analgesia in pediatric populations are needed.

BACKGROUND: Peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) has been increasingly used to manage acute and chronic pain. However, the level of clinical evidence to support its use is not clear. OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical evidence of PNS in the treatment of acute or chronic pain. STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review of the efficacy and safety of PNS in managing acute or chronic pain. METHODS: Data sources were PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, CINAHL Plus, Google Scholar, and reference lists. The literature search was performed up to December 2019. Study selection included randomized trials, observational studies, and case reports of PNS in acute or chronic pain. Data extraction and methodological quality assessment were performed utilizing Cochrane review methodologic quality assessment and Interventional Pain Management Techniques–Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment (IPM-QRB) and Interventional Pain Management Techniques–Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment for Nonrandomized Studies (IPM-QRBNR). The evidence was summarized utilizing principles of best evidence synthesis on a scale of 1 to 5. Data syntheses: 227 studies met inclusion criteria and were included in qualitative synthesis. RESULTS: Evidence synthesis based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies showed Level I and II evidence of PNS in chronic migraine headache; Level II evidence in cluster headache, postamputation pain, chronic pelvic pain, chronic low back and lower extremity pain; and Level IV evidence in peripheral neuropathic pain, and postsurgical pain. Peripheral field stimulation has Level II evidence in chronic low back pain, and Level IV evidence in cranial pain. LIMITATIONS: Lack of high-quality RCTs. Meta-analysis was not possible due to wide variations in experimental design, research protocol, and heterogeneity of study population. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this systematic review suggest that PNS may be effective in managing chronic headaches, postamputation pain, chronic pelvic pain, and chronic low back and lower extremity pain, with variable levels of evidence in favor of this technique. KEY WORDS: Acute pain, chronic pain, neuromodulation, peripheral nerve stimulation

Fluid management is an essential component of the Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) pathway. Optimal management begins in the preoperative period and continues through the intraoperative and postoperative phases. In this review, we outline current evidence-based practices for fluid management through each phase of the perioperative period. Preoperatively, patients should be encouraged to hydrate until 2 hours prior to the induction of anesthesia with a carbohydrate-containing clear liquid. When mechanical bowel preparation is necessary, with modern isoosmotic solutions, fluid repletion is not necessary. Intraoperatively, fluid therapy should aim to maintain euvolemia with an individualized approach. While some patients may benefit from goal-directed fluid therapy, a restrictive, zero-balance approach to intraoperative fluid management may be reasonable. Postoperatively, early initiation of oral intake and cessation of intravenous therapy are recommended.