Background: The effect of erector spinae plane block has been evaluated by clinical trials leading to a diversity of results. The main objective of the current investigation is to compare the analgesic efficacy of erector spinae plane block to no block intervention in patients undergoing surgical procedures. Methods: We performed a quantitative systematic review of randomized controlled trials in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar electronic databases from their inception through July 2019. Included trials reported either on opioid consumption or pain scores as postoperative pain outcomes. Methodological quality of included studies was evaluated using Cochrane Collaboration's tool. Results: Thirteen randomized controlled trials evaluating 679 patients across different surgical procedures were included. The aggregated effect of erector spinae plane block on postoperative opioid consumption revealed a significant effect, weighted mean difference of − 8.84 (95% CI: − 12.54 to − 5.14), (P < 0.001) IV mg morphine equivalents. The effect of erector spinae plane block on post surgical pain at 6 h compared to control revealed a significant effect weighted mean difference of − 1.31 (95% CI: − 2.40 to − 0.23), P < 0.02. At 12 h, the weighted mean difference was of − 0.46 (95% CI: − 1.01 to 0.09), P = 0.10. No block related complications were reported. Conclusions: Our results provide moderate quality evidence that erector spinae plane block is an effective strategy to improve postsurgical analgesia.

Background. The overall effect of perineural dexamethasone on postoperative analgesia outcomes has yet to be quantified. The main objective of this quantitative review was to evaluate the effect of perineural dexamethasone as a nerve block adjunct on postoperative analgesia outcomes. Methods. A systematic search was performed to identify randomized controlled trials that evaluated the effects of perineural dexamethasone as a block adjunct on postoperative pain outcomes in patients receiving regional anesthesia. Meta-analysis was performed using a random-effect model. Results. Nine randomized trials with 760 subjects were included. The weighted mean difference (99% CI) of the combined effects favored perineural dexamethasone over control for analgesia duration, 473 (264 to 682) minutes, and motor block duration, 500 (154 to 846) minutes. Postoperative opioid consumption was also reduced in the perineural dexamethasone group compared to control, −8.5 (−12.3 to −4.6) mg of IV morphine equivalents. No significant neurological symptoms could have been attributed to the use of perineural dexamethasone. Conclusions. Perineural dexamethasone improves postoperative pain outcomes when given as an adjunct to brachial plexus blocks. There were no reports of persistent nerve injury attributed to perineural administration of the drug.

Objective Peripheral nerve blocks for postoperative analgesia have improved block success, but analgesia efficacy has been limited by the short duration of traditional local anesthetics. The results of randomized trials comparing liposome bupivacaine with conventional local anesthetic formulations (e.g., plain bupivacaine and ropivacaine) have generated conflicting results. This study was conducted to systematically review the effectiveness of analgesic efficacy of liposome bupivacaine infiltration at the surgical site versus plain local anesthetic bupivacaine or ropivacaine in patients undergoing surgery. Methods PRISMA statement guidelines were followed. A search of electronic databases National Library of Medicine's PubMed database, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Embase, and Google Scholar from January 2012 to September 2017 was performed. Among the 1,612 records identified, 9 randomized controlled trials involving 779 patients were eligible for data extraction and meta-analysis. Results Liposome bupivacaine did not reduce postsurgical pain at rest compared to plain local anesthetics at 24 and 48 hours after surgery. Moreover, liposome bupivacaine did not reduce postoperative opioid consumption at 24, 48, or 72 hours when compared to plain local anesthetics. Liposome bupivacaine did reduce postoperative nausea when compared to plain local anesthetics (P =<0.3). There was no significant difference in hospital length of stay between study groups, the use of plain bupivacaine or ropivacaine, or among orthopedic or nonorthopedic procedures. No manifestations of local anesthetic toxicity were reported. Conclusions Our results suggest that liposome bupivacaine does not have an analgesic advantage when compared to plain local anesthetics at the surgical site for patients undergoing surgical procedures.

Regional anesthesia is becoming increasingly popular among anesthesiologists in the management of postoperative analgesia following pediatric surgery. The main objective of this review was to systematically evaluate the last 5 years of randomized controlled trials on the role of regional anesthesia techniques in alleviating postoperative pain associated with various pediatric surgical procedures. Forty studies on 2,408 pediatric patients were evaluated. The majority of the articles published from 2013 to 2017 reported that the use of regional anesthesia minimized postoperative pain and reduced opioid consumption. Only a few surgical procedures (cholecystectomy, inguinal hernia repair, and non-laparoscopic major abdominal surgery) reported no significant difference in the postoperative pain relief compared with the standard anesthetic management. The growing number of randomized controlled trials in the pediatric literature is very promising; however, additional confirmation is needed to reinforce the use of specific regional anesthesia techniques to provide optimal postoperative pain relief for a few surgical procedures (reconstructive ear surgery, chest wall deformity, hypospadias, umbilical hernia, cleft palate repair) in pediatric patients. More randomized controlled trials are needed to establish regional anesthesia as an essential component of postoperative analgesia management in children.

Background and Objectives. Methadone is commonly used in chronic pain, but it is not frequently used as an intraoperative analgesic. Several randomized studies have compared intraoperative methadone to morphine regarding postsurgical analgesia, but they have generated conflicting results. The aim of this investigation was to compare the analgesic efficacy of intraoperative methadone to morphine in patients undergoing surgical procedures. Methods. We performed a quantitative systematic review of randomized controlled trials in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar electronic databases. Meta-analysis was performed using the random effects model, weighted mean differences (WMD), standard deviation, 95% confidence intervals, and sample size. Methodological quality was evaluated using Cochrane Collaboration’s tool. Results. Seven randomized controlled trials evaluating 337 patients across different surgical procedures were included. The aggregated effect of intraoperative methadone on postoperative opioid consumption did not reveal a significant effect, WMD (95% CI) of −0.51 (−1.79 to 0.76), (P=0.43) IV morphine equivalents. In contrast, the effect of methadone on postoperative pain demonstrated a significant effect in the postanesthesia care unit, WMD (95% CI) of −1.11 (−1.88 to −0.33), P=0.005, and at 24 hours, WMD (95% CI) of −1.35 (−2.03 to −0.67), P<0.001. Conclusions. The use of intraoperative methadone reduces postoperative pain when compared to morphine. In addition, the beneficial effect of methadone on postoperative pain is not attributable to an increase in postsurgical opioid consumption. Our results suggest that intraoperative methadone may be a viable strategy to reduce acute pain in surgical patients.

No abstract

No abstract

Background Wavefront-optimized laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) ablation is the most commonly performed procedure in refractive surgery, but new technologies have become available. Our goal was to compare topography-guided (Contoura) and asphericity-guided (Custom-Q) customized ablation treatments for the correction of myopia with or without astigmatism. Methods This prospective, randomized, double-blind, contralateral eye study included 60 eyes of 30 patients with myopia or myopic astigmatism requiring femtosecond LASIK (FemtoLASIK) treatment. For each patient, one eye was randomized to undergo Contoura treatment, and the other underwent Custom-Q abaltion. Uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), manifest refractive spherical equivalent (MRSE), sphere (SPH), cylinder (CYL), 6.0-mm total corneal aberration root mean square (RMS), coma (COMA), trefoil (TREF), and spherical aberration (SA) were measured and analysed after a 1-year follow-up. Results The UDVA was − 0.08 ± 0.06 logMAR in Contoura eyes and − 0.08 ± 0.05 logMAR in Custom-Q eyes (p = 0.309) after 12 months. Twenty-five eyes (83%) in the Contoura group and twenty-six eyes (87%) in the Custom-Q group had a UDVA of 20/16 at the end of 12 months, and 100% of eyes in both groups reached a UDVA of 20/25 or better. Ninety and 100% of eyes in the Contoura and Custom-Q groups, respectively, achieved a residual CYL ≤0.50 D (p = 0.237). No statistically significant difference was observed between the surgical techniques in the preoperative to 1-year postoperative changes for any of the parameters evaluated (MRSE, CYL, RMS, DEF, COMA, TREF, and SA). Conclusions The Contoura and Custom-Q techniques yielded excellent visual and refractive results, but the evidence did not reveal any clear differences between these two methods after 1 year of follow-up. Trial registration ReBEC - Registro Brasileiro de Ensaios Clínicos [Internet]: Rio de Janeiro (RJ): Instituto de Informação Científica e Tecnológica em Saúde (Brazil); 2010 -. Identifier RBR-8rs5kt Myopia and Astigmatism Topography-guided Refractive Surgery by Contoura Method Versus Customized by Asphericity in Contralateral Eyes: A prospective Double blind Randomized Study. Available from https://ensaiosclinicos.gov.br/rg/RBR-8rs5kt Date of registration: 02/03/2020 (dd/mm/yyyy). CAAE:96778718.9.0000.5192. Issuing authority: Plataforma Brasil. CEP:2.979.279. Issuing authority: HUOC.