Background/ImportanceLiposomal bupivacaine (LB) is a prolonged release formulation of conventional bupivacaine designed for prolonging local or peripheral regional single injection anesthesia. To this day, the benefit of the new substance on relevant end points is discussed controversial.ObjectiveThe objective was to determine whether there is a difference in postoperative pain scores and morphine consumption between patients treated with LB and bupivacaine hydrochloride in a systematic review and meta-analysis.Evidence reviewRandomized controlled trials (RCT) were identified in Embase, CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Web of Science up to May 2020. Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane methodology. Primary end points were the mean pain score difference and the relative morphine equivalent (MEQ) consumption expressed as the ratio of means (ROM) 24 and 72 hours postoperatively.Findings23 RCTs including 1867 patients were eligible for meta-analysis. The mean pain score difference at 24 hours postoperatively was significantly lower in the LB group, at −0.37 (95% CI −0.56 to −0.19). The relative MEQ consumption after 24 hours was also significantly lower in the LB group, at 0.85 (0.82 to 0.89). At 72 hours, the pain score difference was not significant at −0.25 (−0.71 to 0.20) and the MEQ ratio was 0.85 (0.77 to 0.95).ConclusionThe beneficial effect on pain scores and opioid consumption was small but not clinically relevant, despite statistical significance. The effect was stable among all studies, indicating that it is independent of the application modality.
Background: Double-lumen tube (DLT) intubation is necessary for thoracic surgery and other operations with the need for lung separation. However, DLT insertion is complex and might result in airway trauma. A new videolaryngoscopy (GVL) with a thin blade might improve the intubation time and reduce complexity as well as iatrogenic airway complications compared to conventional direct laryngoscopy (DL) for DLT intubation. Methods: A randomised, controlled trial was conducted in 70 patients undergoing elective thoracic surgery using DLT for lung separation. Primary endpoint was time to successful intubation. The secondary endpoints of this study were number of intubation attempts, the assessment of difficulty, any complications during DLT intubation and the incidence of objective trauma of the oropharynx and supraglottic space and intubation-related subjective symptoms. Results: 65 patients were included (DL group [n = 31], GVL group [n = 34]). Median intubation time (25th-75th percentiles) in GVL group was 93 s (63-160) versus 74 (58-94) in DL group [p = 0.044]. GVL resulted in significantly improved visualisation of the larynx (Cormack and Lehane grade of 1 in GVL group was 97% vs. 74% in DL Group [p = 0.008]). Endoscopic examinations revealed significant differences in GVL group compared to DL group showing less red-blooded vocal cord [p = 0.004], vocal cord haematoma [p = 0.022] and vocal cord haemorrhage [p = 0.002]. No significant differences regarding the postoperative subjective symptoms of airway were found. Conclusions: Videolaryngoscopy using the GlideScope®-Titanium shortly prolongs DLT intubation duration compared to direct laryngoscopy but improves the view. Objective intubation trauma but not subjective complaints are reduced.
Background Double lumen tube (DLT) intubation is the most commonly used technique for one lung ventilation. Bronchial blockers (BB) are an alternative, especially for difficult airways. The EZ-bronchial blocker (EZB) is an innovative y-shaped and double-ended device of the BB family. Methods A randomised, controlled trial was conducted in 80 patients undergoing elective thoracic surgery using DLT or EZB for one lung ventilation (German Clinical Trial Register DRKS00014816). The objective of the study was to compare the clinical performance of EZB with DLT. Primary endpoint was total time to obtain successful one lung ventilation. Secondary endpoints were time subsections, quality of lung collapse, difficulty of intubation, any complications during the procedure, incidence of objective trauma of the oropharynx and supraglottic space and intubation-related subjective symptoms. Results 74 patients were included, DLT group (n = 38), EZB group (n = 36). Median total time to obtain one lung ventilation [IQR] in the DLT group was 234 s [207 to 294] versus 298 s [243 to 369] in the EZB group (P = 0.007). Median total time was relevantly influenced by different preparation times. Quality of lung collapse was equal in both groups, DLT group 89.5% were excellent vs. 83.3% in the EZB group (P = 0.444). Inadequate lung collapse in five patients of the EZB group resulted in unsuccessful repositioning attempts and secondary DLT placement. Endoscopic examinations revealed significantly more carina trauma (P = 0.047) and subglottic haemorrhage (P = 0.047) in the DLT group. Postoperative subjective symptoms (sore throat, hoarseness) were more common in the DLT group, as were speech problems. Conclusions Using EZB prima facie results in prolonged time to obtain one lung ventilation with equal quality of lung collapse for the thoracic surgeon. If preparation times are omitted in the analysis, the time difference is statistically and clinically not relevant. Our data showed only little evidence for reducing objective airway trauma as well as subjective complaints. In summary both procedures were comparable in terms of times and clinical applicability. Therefore decisions for DLT or EZB should depend more on individual experience, in-house equipment and the individual patient, than on any times that are neither clinically significant nor relevant. Trial registration German Clinical Trial Register DRKS00014816, prospectively registered on 07.06.2018
Zusammenfassung Hintergrund Rebound pain als Nebenwirkung einer Regionalanästhesie ist ein übermäßiges Schmerzempfinden nach Abklingen der Wirkung der lokalen Betäubung, welches deutlich über den normalen Wundschmerz nach einer Operation hinausgeht. Dieses Phänomen rückt seit ca. 10 Jahren stärker in den Fokus der Forschung. Die konkreten Ursachen sind bisher unklar, und es existieren auch noch keine zielgerichteten Therapieempfehlungen. Ziel der Arbeit Dieser Übersichtsartikel soll der Leserschaft einen Überblick über den aktuellen Stand der Forschung geben. Es werden die Theorien zur Pathophysiologie vorgestellt und Prophylaxe- sowie Behandlungsstrategien erläutert. Material und Methoden Für diese Übersichtsarbeit wurden die von 2005 bis Mai 2021 auf PubMed erschienenen Publikationen zum Thema Rebound pain durchgesehen und die Definitionen der Autoren zu Rebound pain sowie die Annahmen zur Pathophysiologie und Therapieempfehlungen zusammengefasst. Ergebnisse und Diskussion Insgesamt wurden 22 Originalarbeiten im Hinblick auf die Definition von Rebound pain, die Annahme der Entstehung sowie Therapieoptionen ausgewertet. Dabei zeigt sich, dass keine einheitliche Definition existiert, die Pathophysiologie nicht eindeutig geklärt ist und zum aktuellen Zeitpunkt auch noch keine klaren Empfehlungen zu Prophylaxe sowie Therapie gegeben werden können.
One of the main tasks in every anesthetist's routine clinical practice is securing the airway. This also includes techniques for lung isolation and one-lung ventilation in thoracic surgery and in intensive care medicine. The anesthesiologist has various methods available to achieve one-lung ventilation. This article presents the most commonly used methods for lung isolation. These include the double lumen tube, the bronchus blockers by Arndt and Cohen, the EZ blocker, the Uniblocker, the Univent tube and the VivaSight-DL™. The effects of the one-lung ventilation are not described in detail and for this the reader should refer to the appropriate literature. This article is intended to provide an overview of the various possibilities for lung separation, especially for physicians in continued medical education and also for physicians who rarely use these procedures.
ZusammenfassungEine der größten Limitationen in der Anwendung von Lokalanästhetika liegt in ihrer begrenzten Wirkdauer. In den letzten Jahren wurden liposomale Formulierungen mit prolongierter Freisetzungskinetik entwickelt, um die pharmakologische Wirkdauer der einzeitigen peripheren Regionalanästhesie („Single-shot-Verfahren“) zeitlich „zu strecken“ und somit eine verlängerte Therapiedauer zu bewirken. Im Fokus stehen hierbei insbesondere das Erreichen einer postoperativen Schmerzfreiheit von mindestens 24 h (oder besser sogar 48 h) und dadurch eine frühzeitige Mobilisation der Patienten unter Bedarfsmedikation bei allenfalls geringfügig erhaltener sensorischer Blockade und ohne motorische Einschränkungen (so zumindest die Idealvorstellung). Eine solche moderne pharmakologische Option mit theoretisch deutlich verlängerter Wirkdauer findet sich hierbei in der Gruppe der Amidlokalanästhetika, das liposomale Bupivacain. Bedingt durch einen multivesikulären Liposomenaufbau führt die retardierte Freisetzung der aktiven Komponente Bupivacain-HCl zu einer theoretischen pharmakologischen Wirksamkeit bis zu 72 h. In bisherigen Studien zeigte sich dabei konsistent ein vergleichbares Sicherheitsprofil zum herkömmlichen Bupivacain-HCl. Seit 2011 ist das liposomale Bupivacain unter dem Handelsnamen Exparel© (Fa. Pacira Pharmaceuticals, Parsippany, NJ, USA) von der amerikanischen Food and Drug Administration (FDA) zugelassen. Die Anwendung ist derzeit jedoch auf lokale Wundinfiltration, „Transversus-abdominis-plane“(TAP)-Blockaden und interskalenäre Nervenblockaden des Plexus brachialis beschränkt. Im Jahr 2020 erteilte auch die Europäische Arzneimittel-Agentur (EMA) dem Einsatz des liposomalen Bupivacains für Blockaden des Plexus brachialis oder des N. femoralis sowie als Feldblock bzw. zur Wundinfiltration zur Behandlung postoperativer Schmerzen eine Zulassung. Bislang zeigte sich die Studienlage zur klinischen Effektivität des liposomalen Bupivacains stark heterogen. Aktuelle Metaanalysen, welche die Ergebnisse randomisierter, kontrollierter Studien zur analgetischen Wirksamkeit des liposomalen Bupivacains in verschiedenen Anwendungsbereichen zusammenfassen, weisen nun konsensuell keinen klinisch relevanten Benefit durch die neue liposomale Formulierung nach und erbringen ausreichend Evidenz, um den Diskurs um das liposomale Bupivacain beenden zu können. Ziel dieser Arbeit ist es, dem Leser einen aktuellen evidenzbasierten Überblick zu dieser Substanz zu geben.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.