BACKGROUNDUltrasound-guided interscalene block (ISB) is the reference technique for pain control after ambulatory upper limb surgery, but supraclavicular block (SCB) is an alternative.OBJECTIVESThe aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of SCB vs. ISB in patients undergoing ambulatory arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (ARCR), with the hypothesis of noninferiority of SCB analgesia compared with ISB.DESIGNA randomised, single-blind, noninferiority study.SETTINGHôpital Privé Jean Mermoz, Centre Paul Santy, Lyon, France.PATIENTSAmbulatory ARCR patients.INTERVENTIONPatients were randomly allocated (1 : 1) to receive a single injection SCB or ISB, as well as general anaesthesia. All patients received a postoperative analgesic prescription for home use before leaving hospital (including fast-acting oral morphine sulphate). Patients completed a telephone questionnaire on days 1 and 2 postsurgery.MAIN OUTCOME MEASURESPrimary endpoint was oral morphine consumption (mg) during the first 2 days postsurgery. If the difference between mean morphine consumption in the SCB vs. ISB group was less than 30 mg, noninferiority of SCB compared with ISB would be demonstrated. Secondary evaluation criteria included pain scores (numerical rating scale), duration of motor and sensory blockade, and satisfaction with treatment.RESULTSThe per-protocol cohort included 103 patients (SCB = 52, ISB = 51) (57% men, median age 58 years). Mean morphine consumption in the 48 h postsurgery was 9.4 vs. 14.7 mg in the SCB and ISB groups, respectively (difference −5.3, P < 0.001). The upper limit of the 95% CI was less than 30 mg, demonstrating noninferiority of SCB compared with ISB. No difference was observed between the two groups in terms of pain scores or the duration of motor or sensory blockade. Overall, 98% of patients in the SCB group vs. 90% in the ISB group were satisfied with their treatment.CONCLUSIONSCB is as effective as ISB in terms of postoperative analgesia based on oral morphine consumption in patients undergoing ambulatory ARCR.TRIAL REGISTRATIONEudraCT number: 2016-A00747-47.

III, prospective case-control study.

Prolongation of peripheral nerve blockade by intravenous dexamethasone may be extended by intravenous dexmedetomidine. We randomly allocated 122 participants who had intravenous dexamethasone 0.15 mg.kg À1 before interscalene brachial plexus block for day-case arthroscopic rotator cuff repair to intravenous saline (62 participants) or intravenous dexmedetomidine 1 lg.kg À1 (60 participants). The primary outcome was time from block to first oral morphine intake during the first 48 postoperative hours. Fifty-nine participants reported taking oral morphine, 25/62 after placebo and 34/60 after dexmedetomidine, p = 0.10. The time to morphine intake was shorter after dexmedetomidine, hazard ratio (95%CI) 1.68 (1.00-2.82), p = 0.049. Median (IQR [range]) morphine doses were 0 (0-12.5 [0-50]) mg after control vs. 10 (0-30 [0-50]) after dexmedetomidine, a difference (95%CI) of 7 (0-10) mg, p = 0.056. There was no effect of dexmedetomidine on pain at rest or on movement. Intra-operative hypotension was recorded for 27/62 and 50/60 participants after placebo vs. dexmedetomidine, respectively, p < 0.001. Other outcomes were similar, including durations of sensory and motor block. In conclusion, dexmedetomidine shortened the time to oral morphine consumption after interscalene block combined with dexamethasone and caused intra-operative hypotension.

About a year after dextropropoxyphene (DXP) withdrawal from the French market, we conducted a survey among members of the French Society of Anesthesia & Intensive Care Medicine (Sfar) and of the French Society of the Study and Treatment of Pain (SFETD) to identify the indications for which this WHO level II analgesic had been prescribed, the prescriber's feedback following withdrawal, and the substitutive analgesics prescribed. DXP had been prescribed by more than 75% of the 430 anaesthesiologists and 230 pain specialists interviewed, mainly for acute and chronic non-cancer pain of moderate intensity. While two thirds of pain specialists were not satisfied with DXP withdrawal, this decision did not affect the majority of anaesthesiologists. In both groups, the main substitutive analgesic was tramadol combined with acetaminophen, while only 24% of prescribers considered acetaminophen alone as a substitute.

Background: Postoperative pain is common at the global level, despite considerable attempts for improvement, reflecting the complexity of offering effective pain relief. In this study, clinicians from Mexico, China, and eight European countries evaluated perioperative pain practices and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in their hospitals as a basis for carrying out quality improvement (QI) projects in each country.Methods: PAIN OUT, an international perioperative pain registry, provided standardized methodology for assessing management and multi-dimensional PROs on the first postoperative day, in patients undergoing orthopaedic, general surgery, obstetric & gynaecology or urological procedures.Results: Between 2017 and 2019, data obtained from 10,415 adult patients in 105 wards, qualified for analysis. At the ward level: 50% (median) of patients reported worst pain intensities ≥7/10 NRS, 25% spent ≥50% of the time in severe pain and 20-34% reported severe ratings for pain-related functional and emotional interference. Demographic variables, country and surgical discipline explained a small proportion of the variation in the PROs, leaving about 88% unexplained. Most treatment processes varied considerably between wards. Ward effects accounted for about 7% and 32% of variation in PROs and treatment processes, respectively. Conclusions:This comprehensive evaluation demonstrates that many patients in this international cohort reported poor pain-related PROs on the first postoperative day. PROs and treatments varied greatly. Most of the variance of the PROs could not be explained. The findings served as a basis for devising and implementing QI programmes in participating hospitals.Author names are listed in the acknowledgement section.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract