Postoperative Analgesic Effectiveness of Quadratus Lumborum Block for Cesarean Delivery under Spinal Anesthesia.

BACKGROUND: Spinal morphine is the mainstay of postcesarean analgesia. Quadratus lumborum block has recently been proposed as an adjunct or alternative to spinal morphine. The authors evaluated the analgesic effectiveness of quadratus lumborum block in cesarean delivery with and without spinal morphine. METHODS: Randomized trials evaluating quadratus lumborum block benefits in elective cesarean delivery under spinal anesthesia were sought. Three comparisons were considered: spinal morphine versus spinal morphine and quadratus lumborum block; spinal morphine versus quadratus lumborum block; and no block or spinal morphine versus quadratus lumborum block. The two coprimary outcomes were postoperative (1) 24-h cumulative oral morphine equivalent consumption and (2) pain at 4 to 6 h. Secondary outcomes included area under the curve pain, time to analgesic request, block complications, and opioid-related side effects. RESULTS: Twelve trials (924 patients) were analyzed. The mean differences (95% CIs) in 24-h morphine consumption and pain at 4 to 6 h for spinal morphine versus spinal morphine and quadratus lumborum block comparison were 0 mg (-2 to 1) and -0.1 cm (-0.7 to 0.4), respectively, indicating no benefit. For spinal morphine versus quadratus lumborum block, these differences were 7 mg (-2 to 15) and 0.6 cm (-0.7 to 1.8), respectively, also indicating no benefit. In contrast, for no block or spinal morphine versus quadratus lumborum block, improvements of -18 mg (-28 to -7) and -1.5 cm (-2.4 to -0.6) were observed, respectively, with quadratus lumborum block. Finally, for no block or spinal morphine versus quadratus lumborum block, quadratus lumborum block improved area under the 48-h pain curve by -4.4 cm · h (-5.0 to -3.8), exceeding the clinically important threshold (3.96 cm · h), but no differences were observed in the other comparisons. CONCLUSIONS: Moderate quality evidence suggests that quadratus lumborum block does not enhance analgesic outcomes when combined with or compared with spinal morphine. However, the block improves postcesarean analgesia in the absence of spinal morphine. The clinical utility of this block seems limited to situations in which spinal morphine is not used.

Perineural Liposomal Bupivacaine Is Not Superior to Nonliposomal Bupivacaine for Peripheral Nerve Block Analgesia.

BACKGROUND: Liposomal bupivacaine is purported to extend analgesia of peripheral nerve blocks when administered perineurally. However, evidence of the clinical effectiveness of perineural liposomal bupivacaine is mixed. This meta-analysis seeks to evaluate the effectiveness of perineural liposomal bupivacaine in improving peripheral nerve block analgesia as compared with nonliposomal local anesthetics. METHODS: The authors identified randomized trials evaluating the effectiveness of peripheral nerve block analgesic that compared liposomal bupivacaine with nonliposomal local anesthetics. The primary outcome was the difference in area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC) of the pooled 24- to 72-h rest pain severity scores. Secondary outcomes included postoperative analgesic consumption, time to first analgesic request, incidence of opioid-related side effects, patient satisfaction, length of hospital stay, liposomal bupivacaine side effects, and functional recovery. AUC pain scores were interpreted in light of a minimal clinically important difference of 2.0 cm · h. RESULTS: Nine trials (619 patients) were analyzed. When all trials were pooled, AUC pain scores ± SD at 24 to 72 h were 7.6 ± 4.9 cm · h and 6.6 ± 4.6 cm · h for nonliposomal and liposomal bupivacaine, respectively. As such, perineural liposomal bupivacaine provided a clinically unimportant benefit by improving the AUC (95% CI) of 24- to 72-h pain scores by 1.0 cm · h (0.5 to 1.6; P = 0.003) compared with nonliposomal bupivacaine. Excluding an industry-sponsored trial rendered the difference between the groups nonsignificant (0.7 cm · h [-0.1 to 1.5]; P = 0.100). Secondary outcome analysis did not uncover any additional benefits to liposomal bupivacaine in pain severity at individual timepoints up to 72 h, analgesic consumption, time to first analgesic request, opioid-related side effects, patient satisfaction, length of hospital stay, and functional recovery. No liposomal bupivacaine side effects were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Perineural liposomal bupivacaine provided a statistically significant but clinically unimportant improvement in the AUC of postoperative pain scores compared with plain local anesthetic. Furthermore, this benefit was rendered nonsignificant after excluding an industry-sponsored trial, and liposomal bupivacaine was found to be not different from plain local anesthetics for postoperative pain and all other analgesic and functional outcomes. High-quality evidence does not support the use of perineural liposomal bupivacaine over nonliposomal bupivacaine for peripheral nerve blocks.

Opioid- and Motor-sparing with Proximal, Mid-, and Distal Locations for Adductor Canal Block in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: The ideal location for single-injection adductor canal block that maximizes analgesia while minimizing quadriceps weakness after painful knee surgery is unclear. This triple-blind trial compares ultrasound-guided adductor canal block injection locations with the femoral artery positioned medial (proximal adductor canal), inferior (mid-adductor canal), and lateral (distal adductor canal) to the sartorius muscle to determine the location that optimizes postoperative analgesia and motor function. The hypothesis was that distal adductor block has (1) a superior opioid-sparing effect and (2) preserved quadriceps strength, compared with proximal and mid-locations for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. METHODS: For the study, 108 patients were randomized to proximal, mid-, or distal adductor canal injection locations for adductor canal block. Cumulative 24-h oral morphine equivalent consumption and percentage quadriceps strength decrease (maximum voluntary isometric contraction) at 30 min postinjection were coprimary outcomes. The time to first analgesic request, pain scores, postoperative nausea/vomiting at least once within the first 24 h, and block-related complications at 2 weeks were also evaluated. RESULTS: All patients completed the study. Contrary to the hypothesis, proximal adductor canal block decreased 24-h morphine consumption to a mean ± SD of 34.3 ± 19.1 mg, (P < 0.0001) compared to 64.0 ± 33.6 and 65.7 ± 22.9 mg for the mid- and distal locations, respectively, with differences [95% CI] of 29.7 mg [17.2, 42.2] and 31.4 mg [21.5, 41.3], respectively, mostly in the postanesthesia care unit. Quadriceps strength was similar, with 16.7%:13.4%:15.3% decreases for proximal:mid:distal adductor canal blocks. The nausea/vomiting risk was also lower with proximal adductor canal block (10 of 34, 29.4%) compared to distal location (23 of 36, 63.9%; P = 0.005). The time to first analgesic request was longer, and postoperative pain was improved up to 6 h for proximal adductor canal block, compared to mid- and distal locations. CONCLUSIONS: A proximal adductor canal injection location decreases opioid consumption and opioid-related side effects without compromising quadriceps strength compared to mid- and distal locations for adductor canal block in patients undergoing anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

Review article: is ultrasound guidance advantageous for interventional pain management? A systematic review of chronic pain outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Modern ultrasound (US) is an attractive alternative to anatomical landmark-, nerve stimulation-, and fluoroscopic-guided techniques for interventional procedures performed to treat chronic pain syndromes. METHODS: In this review, we evaluated the effects of US guidance compared with traditional guidance techniques on performance, efficacy, and safety outcomes for interventional chronic pain procedures. We identified 46 studies, including 41 case series and 5 randomized trials of intermediate-to-good quality that investigated the use of US guidance for a diverse variety of chronic pain procedures. RESULTS: Our results suggest that US guidance can match or improve performance- and safety-related outcomes compared with many anatomic landmark-, nerve stimulation-, and fluoroscopic-guided techniques for treating chronic pain. CONCLUSIONS: There are presently insufficient data to support improved efficacy with procedures performed with US guidance for relieving both short- and long-term chronic pain.

The mornings after-periarticular liposomal bupivacaine infiltration does not improve analgesic outcomes beyond 24 hours following total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Periarticular local infiltration analgesia (LIA) is integral to multimodal analgesia following total knee arthroplasty (TKA); however, the duration of analgesia using traditional long-acting local anesthetics is often insufficient. LIA with slow-release liposomal bupivacaine may provide extended analgesia, but evidence of efficacy beyond the first 24 hours is conflicting. This meta-analysis compares the effects of periarticular liposomal and plain bupivacaine LIA on day 2 analgesic outcomes post-TKA. Trials comparing liposomal and plain bupivacaine LIA for TKA were sought. The two coprimary outcomes were (1) cumulative oral morphine equivalent consumption and (2) difference in area under the curve (AUC) of pooled rest pain scores on day 2 (24-48 hours) post-TKA. We also evaluated pain and analgesic consumption on day 3 (48-72 hours), functional recovery, length of hospital stay, patient satisfaction; and opioid-related side effects. Data were pooled using random-effects modeling. Seventeen trials (1836 patients) were analyzed. Comparing liposomal versus plain bupivacaine LIA for TKA failed to detect differences in morphine consumption and pain AUC on day 2 postoperatively, with mean differences of 0.54 mg (95% CI -5.09 to 6.18) and 0.08 cm/hour (95% CI -0.19 to 0.35), respectively (high-quality evidence). Secondary outcome analysis did not uncover any additional analgesic, functional or safety advantages to liposomal bupivacaine on postoperative day 2 or 3. Results indicate that liposomal and plain bupivacaine LIAs are not different for extended postoperative analgesic outcomes, including pain control, opioid consumption, as well as functional and safety outcomes on days 2 and 3 post-TKA. High-quality evidence does not support using liposomal bupivacaine LIA for TKA.

Statistically significant but clinically unimportant: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the analgesic benefits of erector spinae plane block following breast cancer surgery.

The novel erector spinae plane block (ESPB) has been reported to provide important postoperative analgesic benefits following a variety of truncal and abdominal surgical procedures. However, evidence of its analgesic efficacy following breast cancer surgery, compared with parenteral analgesia, is unclear. This meta-analysis evaluates the analgesic benefits of adding ESPB to parenteral analgesia following breast cancer surgery.Databases were searched for breast tumor resection trials comparing ESPB to parenteral analgesia. The two co-primary outcomes examined were 24-hour postoperative oral morphine equivalent consumption and area-under-curve of rest pain scores. We considered reductions equivalent to 3.3 cm.h and 30 mg oral morphine in the first 24 hours postoperatively for the two co-primary outcomes, respectively, to be clinically important. We also assessed opioid-related side effects and long-term outcomes, including health-related quality of life, persistent postsurgical pain and opioid dependence. Results were pooled using random effects modeling.Twelve trials (699 patients) were analyzed. Moderate quality evidence suggested that ESPB decreased 24-hour morphine consumption and area-under-curve of rest pain by a mean difference (95% CI) of -17.60 mg (-24.27 to -10.93) and -2.74 cm.h (-3.09 to -2.39), respectively; but these differences were not clinically important. High-quality evidence suggested that ESPB decreased opioid-related side effects compared with parenteral analgesia by an OR (95% CI) of 0.43 (0.28 to 0.66). None of the studies evaluated long-term block benefits.Adding ESPB to parenteral analgesia provides statistically significant but clinically unimportant short-term benefits following breast cancer surgery. Current evidence does not support routine use of ESPB. Given the very modest short-term benefits and risk of complications, the block should be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Neurological Complications Related to Elective Orthopedic Surgery: Part 2: Common Hip and Knee Procedures.

Many anesthesiologists may not be familiar with the rate of surgical neurological complications of the hip and knee procedures for which they are providing local anesthetic-based anesthesia and/or analgesia. Part 2 of this narrative review series on neurological complications of elective orthopedic surgery describes the mechanisms and likelihood of peripheral nerve injury associated with some of the most common hip and knee procedures, including arthroscopic hip and knee surgery and total hip and knee replacement. WHAT'S NEW: As the popularity of regional anesthesia continues to increase with the development of ultrasound guidance, anesthesiologists should have a thoughtful understanding of the nerves at risk of surgical injury during elective hip and knee procedures.

Neurological Complications Related to Elective Orthopedic Surgery: Part 3: Common Foot and Ankle Procedures.

Part III of a review series on neurological complications of orthopedic surgery, this article describes the mechanisms and likelihood of peripheral nerve injury associated with some of the most common elective foot and ankle procedures for which anesthesiologists may administer regional anesthesia. Relevant information is broadly organized according to type of surgical procedure to facilitate reference by anesthesiologists and members of the anesthesia care team. WHAT'S NEW: As the popularity of regional anesthesia continues to increase with the development of ultrasound guidance, anesthesiologists should have a thoughtful understanding of the nerves at risk of surgical injury during elective foot and ankle procedures.

Neurological Complications Related to Elective Orthopedic Surgery: Part 1: Common Shoulder and Elbow Procedures.

Many anesthesiologists are unfamiliar with the rate of surgical neurological complications of the shoulder and elbow procedures for which they provide local anesthetic-based anesthesia and/or analgesia. Part 1 of this narrative review series on neurological complications of elective orthopedic surgery describes the mechanisms and likelihood of peripheral nerve injury associated with some of the most common shoulder and elbow procedures, including open and arthroscopic shoulder procedures, elbow arthroscopy, and total shoulder and elbow replacement. Despite the many articles available, the overall number of studied patients is relatively low. Large prospective trials are required to establish the true incidence of neurological complications following elective shoulder and elbow surgery. WHAT'S NEW: As the popularity of regional anesthesia increases with the development of ultrasound guidance, anesthesiologists should have a thoughtful understanding of the nerves at risk of surgical injury during elective shoulder and elbow procedures.

The role of a preprocedure systematic sonographic survey in ultrasound-guided regional anesthesia.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The presence of neurovascular abnormalities may increase the risk of complications following regional anesthesia techniques. Use of conventional nerve localization methods may fail to detect such abnormalities and potentially result in block failure and/or unintentional neurovascular injury. METHODS: We use 2 examples to illustrate this, and the concept that systematic use of a preprocedure ultrasound (US) scan may serve as an aid both for diagnosis of abnormal anatomy, and in planning the appropriate anesthetic technique. RESULTS: Use of a preprocedure US scan helped to diagnose abnormal anatomy and assisted in planning a more appropriate anesthetic technique. CONCLUSIONS: We believe that a systematic sonographic survey prior to regional anesthesia can be a valuable bedside screening tool to assess the suitability and challenges involved in performing US-guided peripheral nerve block.

Ultrasound guidance in peripheral regional anesthesia: philosophy, evidence-based medicine, and techniques.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This article introduces the use of ultrasound to facilitate peripheral regional anesthesia. RECENT FINDINGS: Regional anesthesia, despite its well known clinical benefits, has not gained the popularity of general anesthesia. This is secondary to multiple shortcomings including a defined failure rate, lack of simplicity, and the potential for patient discomfort or injury. Many of the negative aspects of regional anesthesia evolve from the reality that current nerve-localization techniques are unreliable. Given the great variation in human anatomy it is not surprising that even the most veteran clinician can be challenged by techniques that demand anatomical assumptions. The recent use of ultrasound imaging for nerve localization is an innovative application of an old technology which addresses many of the shortcomings of current techniques. Specifically, ultrasound imaging allows the operator to see neural structures, guide the needle under real-time visualization, navigate away from sensitive anatomy, and monitor the spread of local anesthetic. SUMMARY: Ultrasound technology represents an ideal mechanism by which the regional anesthesiologist can attain the safety, speed, and efficacy of general anesthesia. Ultimately, it is the correct peri-neural spread of local anesthetic around a nerve that provides safe, effective, and efficient anesthetic conditions.